House of Commons
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Deputy Speaker’s Statement
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I wish to inform the House that Mr Speaker has received a letter from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), giving notice of his resignation as Chair of the Committee on Standards. The Chair is now vacant. The election for a new Chair will take place to the same timetable as that for the Chairs of the Business and Trade Committee and the Petitions Committee, which Mr Speaker announced yesterday.
Nominations will close at noon on Tuesday 17 October. Nomination forms will be available from the Vote Office, the Table Office and the Public Bill Office. Only Members from the Labour party may be candidates in this election. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 18 October, between 11 am and 2.30 pm, in the Aye Division Lobby. A briefing note with more information will be made available in the Vote Office.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a long-standing convention, under successive Governments, that outgoing Prime Ministers can draw up a resignation honours list. Any names proposed are subject to the usual propriety checks.
Patricia Gibson
Trust in politics has never been lower, and this has been worsened by the grubby reality that the former right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip handed out peerages to his pals and covid partygoers. The other former Prime Minister was the shortest-serving Prime Minister in history but still managed to crash the economy, and she will also enjoy the privilege of ennobling pals and cronies. Do the Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet feel this is inappropriate in any way? Does the Minister think such a spectacle will help to restore trust in politics?
Alex Burghart
We discussed this at length on 22 June, when it was said that if the hon. Lady were to look at the resignation honours list of the former right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, she will see many people who conducted a great deal of public service and deserved to have that service recognised. We have not yet seen the list of the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), but it is worth remembering that people who are honoured in our system have often contributed greatly to our country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before we proceed, the House may wish to join me in wishing the Minister a happy birthday.
Alex Burghart
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What nicer way to spend one’s 28th birthday? Alas, I am not 28.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Government know the importance of collaborating internationally on the challenge and opportunities of AI. That is why, in the autumn, the Prime Minister will convene the first major AI summit, which will bring together major international partners and leaders in the technology to discuss the issues that confront society.
Dr Evans
It is great to hear that the international community will be coming to Bletchley Park in November to discuss the principles and core values when dealing with AI. Given that AI is moving so quickly, with the likes of ChatGPT already impacting things like the work of school kids, what more can the Government do to make sure each Department is taking full account of the impact of AI?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. The Cabinet Office, which is home to the Government Digital Service and the Central Digital and Data Office, takes a lead role, along with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, in co-ordinating work within Government so that we can take advantage of the extraordinary opportunities AI presents and guard ourselves against potential disadvantages.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is nice to see you in the Chair first thing in the morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. Constituents all around this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rely on employment to make ends meet and survive. Has he had discussions with international partners as to how AI will impact on people’s livelihoods and jobs? That is so important.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, as one potential risk of AI is that it displaces employment. However, across Government we are looking at the risks and opportunities. We see a future in which humans working with AI create all sorts of great new opportunities for our economy and for individuals.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me also say happy birthday to the Minister. He has just told the House that the Cabinet Office is responsible for the Government Digital Service—quite rightly. The Government could be making better use of AI to improve government services. For example, we are losing £8 billion a year to benefit fraud and error. Under this Government, we have lost £60 billion to that since 2010—that is £150 a second. Are they going to use AI to deal with benefit fraud and error, or should we assume that this is another example of how nothing works after 13 years?
Alex Burghart
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and look forward to debating these and other issues with him in future. He will be delighted to hear that over the past three years the Government have saved billions of pounds using the latest technology—
Alex Burghart
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have. I can see he is new to the brief and he has some reading to do. [Interruption.] He has been moved from his previous brief to this one. He may be interested to discover that we regularly convene meetings with groups such as Evidence House and 10DS, which contain some of the finest technical experience in Government, to ensure we are taking advantage of the latest technology to make savings for taxpayers. He talks about money lost, but the money that the Government and the Treasury have saved through implementing the latest techniques is far in excess of the number he gave.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
As the Prime Minister set out when he first entered Downing Street, this Government will uphold the highest standards of integrity and propriety. In July we announced a wide- ranging programme of reform, acting on recommendations from Nigel Boardman, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Public Administration Committee.
Mohammad Yasin
We have all heard that the former Member for Mid Bedfordshire failed to speak in this House for more than a year and that her farcical resignation, which was to have “immediate effect”, took nearly three months, but what about the years when there was no constituency office listed for people to make representations to? With no regard to standards in public life, it is clear that the Tories have sold my neighbouring constituency down the river. Does the Secretary of State agree that the good people of Mid Bedfordshire deserve a hard-working, full-time Labour MP such as Alistair Strathern instead?
Oliver Dowden
The people of Mid Bedfordshire deserve a hard-working Member of Parliament who lives and works in the constituency, and in Festus they will find exactly that. I have every confidence that they will return him to this House in the by-election next month.
Justin Madders
At the conclusion of Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) made a point of order, picking up on a statement made by the Prime Minister that she described as “categorically untrue”. This is about the sixth or seventh time this year that we have had to make such points of order about the Prime Minister. How can we have any confidence that we are going to get high standards in public life if this keeps happening?
Oliver Dowden
That is simply not the case. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the exchange, he would have heard that the Prime Minister answered comprehensively every question raised by the Leader of the Opposition and demonstrated a far greater understanding of the detail of this than that demonstrated by his opposite number.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Last year, the Prime Minister said that his Government would do “everything we can” to recover covid fraud losses, yet the crony PPE VIP lane helped Tory-linked business owners over small and medium-sized businesses, meaning that £15 billion of taxpayer money was wasted on useless PPE. The Public Accounts Committee found it “unacceptable” that the Government are not prioritising recouping misused money, with only £21 million—only 2%—recovered from fraudsters. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to fulfil his Government’s pledge to reclaim misused taxpayer money? Or is that, like the Prime Minister’s promise of integrity and accountability, another failed vow?
Oliver Dowden
What we saw during the crisis was the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor, acting decisively and rapidly to save the economy and millions of jobs. Since we have passed out of the covid period, we are taking action to recover fraud and error losses. As set out by my hon. Friends, in the past two years alone, we have recovered more than £3 billion. I would gently say to the hon. Lady that people in glasshouses should perhaps not throw stones, given the experience of her party’s leaders being frogmarched by the police to investigate the misuse of funds by her own party.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
The Prime Minister’s independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Laurie Magnus, works within established and robust terms of reference, to provide impartial advice on matters relating to the ministerial code. The powers and status of the role were strengthened in 2022 and Sir Laurie has said he is very comfortable working within his terms of reference.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is an understatement to observe that the ministerial code has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance during the last few years, and trust in our politics has suffered as a direct result. It has taken the Government two years to respond to the 23rd report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and they have failed to accept the most important recommendations in it, including increasing the power and transparency of the work of the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. Why?
Oliver Dowden
We have already reformed the role of the independent adviser. It is now the case that the independent adviser can initiate investigations with the presumption that the Prime Minister will approve them. That is the appropriate balance, but we have to respect that the Prime Minister must be the ultimate upholder of the ministerial code, because it is an important principle of our parliamentary democracy that the Prime Minister is able to appoint whomever he chooses to ministerial posts.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
This Government are delivering on their commitments within the veterans’ strategy action plan to support veterans and their families. Our plan, which is backed by an additional £33 million announced by the Chancellor in this year’s Budget, contains commitments across Government, including support for health provision, housing and employment, the majority of which have been delivered or are on track.
Andrew Gwynne
That is great and we all support those measures, but he will also know that the independent review of the UK Government welfare services for veterans found that the current system is “overly complex” and suffers from
“a lack of cohesion, of strategic direction and single oversight”.
It also found that veterans regularly receive “poor communication” from Government and were left “overwhelmed” by the system. Does the Minister accept responsibility for those failings and what is he doing to fix them?
Johnny Mercer
I initiated that review when I first came back into office under this Prime Minister. That review has now completed. It was due to report before Christmas, but I have pulled that forward and I want to see a response from Government to the review by the end of September or the beginning of October. The review highlights changes that have been overdue for some time and I look forward to having more to say to the hon. Gentleman on that matter when the response comes back.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
The Government’s cyber-security strategy sets out our plans to strengthen the resilience of the Government’s critical functions against cyber- attacks. A key milestone in our plan came earlier this year when I launched GovAssure. This is a new approach to cyber-resilience in which Departments review their cyber-security and take the necessary steps to meet the risks that we face.
Andrew Selous
These cyber-attacks, which are often totally devastating, have been increasing in both severity and frequency not only against Government Departments, but against many of our major businesses with potentially devastating consequences for livelihoods and jobs. What are we doing in Government to take the expertise that we have acquired within Government to protect Government Departments and to spread it across the economy to protect the private sector as well?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is totally correct that the external risk landscape is increasing all the time, not least because of the conflict in Russia and Ukraine, which has meant that the United Kingdom, after Ukraine and Russia, is the most cyber-attacked nation. We are taking a whole-of-Government approach, which is why we created the National Cyber Security Centre, working with GCHQ and the Cabinet Office to ensure that we have robust standards in Government and that we also work with businesses to improve their standards and, indeed, with private individuals.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
It was a privilege to appear before the infected blood inquiry on 25 July. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, referred to birthdays earlier and I believe that that was the birthday of the right hon. Lady, but she shared it with us in the inquiry—she was there in person for the hearings. At the inquiry, I shared the work the Government are undertaking to consider the interim recommendations and I look forward to receiving the final report in the autumn.
Dame Diana Johnson
It was good to see the Paymaster General, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Chancellor at those reconvened hearings. Sir Brian Langstaff made it very clear that his interim report on compensation was the last word that he was going to make on compensation. The Government have also accepted the moral case for compensation. What progress has now been made on Sir Brian’s recommendation on extending the interim payments to those who were not included in the first tranche of interim payments last year?
Jeremy Quin
As the right hon. Lady knows, we are working through this. There is more work to be done. It is a mammoth undertaking, as she knows, and we are looking forward to the final report and putting our response into that context.
Jeff Smith
“Working through this” is not good enough. Several families in my constituency have lost partners or parents as a result of the infected blood scandal and they are frustrated by the delay and obfuscation. One of my constituents told me:
“The lack of transparency is causing great stress and anxiety to those of us at the heart of this NHS treatment disaster who have already waited decades for our loss and suffering to be recognised.”
One person is dying every four days. This is becoming urgent. Will the Government commit to a full compensation scheme as quickly as possible?
Jeremy Quin
We commit to responding as soon as we can to the final report. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have accepted the moral case for compensation. After the final report comes through, we will be bringing out our response as swiftly as we can.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
Hotels are not and never were designed to be long-term accommodation for Afghans resettled in the UK. I am therefore pleased to say that, as of 1 September, in line with our promises, no legally resettled Afghans remain in bridging accommodation. As I told the House on 18 July, there is a small number for whom time-limited contingency accommodation will be provided, including where there is a need to bridge the short gap between the end of notice periods and settled accommodation being ready for them to move into, and in cases of medical need, where a family member requires continued attendance at a specific hospital.
Selaine Saxby
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the new Afghan families to North Devon and thank everyone locally who is working to ensure that their resettlement is as smooth as possible and to give them a true Devonian welcome?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and pay tribute to all those working locally in her constituency to prepare to welcome Afghan families to the area. North Devon is steeped in military history. I am pleased to see her long-standing support for veterans extend to those who assisted the UK in Afghanistan as well.
Peter Grant
I record my admiration for, and thank, the many public and voluntary agencies and individuals in Fife for the dedication and compassion that they have shown to the Afghans they have hosted over the last two years. Sadly, those Afghans are becoming victims of the biggest mass eviction that Scotland has seen since the highland clearances. When we remember that those people are here because they risked their lives for us—they risked their lives in Afghanistan for democracy—why have the Government not even considered a Homes for Afghans scheme, similar to the Homes for Ukraine scheme that made such a difference to desperate Ukrainian refugees?
Johnny Mercer
Largely because these are two different cohorts. Ukrainians are looking to return to Ukraine in the future; the Afghan cohort are staying here and will be in this country for an indeterminate period. We are looking at all ways that we can continue to assist those who have come over from Afghanistan. I, too, pay tribute to all the Home Office liaison officers and all the staff in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and in the Ministry of Defence who have worked hard to get this over the line. I said that we would honour our commitments to the people of Afghanistan and we will continue to do so.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Minister will be acutely aware, as I am, that around 2,000 Afghans who are entitled to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy are stuck in hotels in Islamabad. I know that he has seen the letter that went to the Prime Minister, which I signed along with other colleagues. What is the plan to get those 2,000 ARAP-entitled Afghans into settled accommodation?
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Member knows that this has been a long-standing concern of mine, both before Government and in Government. My area of specific responsibility in terms of getting people here and into hotels and accommodation has been completed. That is a Home Office area, and I have not had discussions on it so far, but everybody is aware of our commitment to the people who served in Afghanistan, and the Government will follow through on their commitment to those people.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
While Hollywood remembers the work of Oppenheimer, the Government are committed to recognising the contribution of veterans and civilian staff across the UK and the Commonwealth to Britain’s nuclear test programme. The Office for Veterans’ Affairs is investing £450,000 in projects to commemorate and build further understanding of their experiences. I recently visited the Worcestershire Medal Service in Birmingham’s jewellery quarter to see the first nuclear test medals start rolling off the production line.
Jack Lopresti
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of applications for the nuclear test medal, and whether the medals will be ready to be awarded by Remembrance Sunday?
Johnny Mercer
Of course. Last time we were here, I made a commitment that we would do everything possible to get these medals on chests by Remembrance Sunday. We are in line with that commitment. We will meet that commitment. This has been a 70-year project and campaign by these individuals. I totally respect that for some it is not fast enough, and for some it is not enough to be done. We are straining every sinew to bring recognition to this cohort and we will continue to do so. We will have those medals ready for Remembrance Sunday this year.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear that continued commitment to ensuring that medals are with nuclear test veterans in time for Remembrance Sunday. Our nuclear test veterans served our country with pride and distinction, but given the uncertainty caused by the Government’s previous comments that the medals would be awarded by late summer, and then that they would be ready in the autumn, can we have some clarity, and will the Minister tell the House what recent discussions he has had with nuclear test veterans and their representatives about a formal medal ceremony? Can he guarantee that nuclear test veterans will be awarded their medals in a manner befitting their brave service?
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Member will be aware that Remembrance Sunday is coming up, which is a timeline that campaigners wanted to meet. That gives us a narrow window to do the sort of ceremony that I would think befits these individuals. It is a balance between getting the medals on people’s chests for Remembrance Sunday and at the same time ensuring that they are awarded in a manner that is in keeping with their service. That is simply the art of the possible and what can be done. I am proud of what the Government have done on nuclear test veterans. Her party, when it was in power, did not award nuclear test veterans; in fact, she signed early-day motions to campaign against nuclear weapons, so I will not take any lessons on this. I am proud of what we have done, and I look forward to seeing medals on chests for Remembrance Sunday.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
Civil service sickness absence data are published annually. The latest data indicate that an average of 2.3 working days were lost per staff year due to mental ill health for the year ending 31 March 2022.
Mr Hollobone
I understand that nearly three quarters of a million civil service working days were lost due to alleged stress and mental health reasons, and that that figure is 40% up on the year before. Of course those with genuine mental health needs need appropriate support but, given that many civil servants enjoy pay and pension packages way in excess of what many people can get in the private sector, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that only those with genuine mental health conditions are granted a leave of absence?
Jeremy Quin
I know my hon. Friend will be aware that there has been, in both the private and public sectors, a large spike in all sickness absence this year, because of course the comparative data were with the pandemic period. The good news for him is that the most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics show that sickness absence for all forms is lower in the most recent period in central Government Departments than it is in the private sector. We work with people who are unwell, using occupational health and employee assistance provision to ensure that they get the support that they need. We continue to wish to drive down the numbers of people who are off for ill health and to ensure that those who are unwell get the support that they require, but we work with them.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
In April, the Government published a draft British border target operating model and on 29 August we published our final border target operating model, confirming its introduction on 31 January next year. It outlines our new controls regime, using better technology and co-ordination to reduce friction and costs, and will provide a simpler, yet secure, experience for traders moving goods across the border.
Sarah Olney
Small businesses up and down the country have spent countless hours and millions of pounds preparing for these changes, only to find that the Government are delaying implementation for the fifth time. How does the Minister expect businesses to have any confidence in making long-term investment and supply chain decisions when this Government have such a long list of U-turns and policy blunders?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady is right that we have pushed the date back several times, first because of covid, secondly because of Ukraine and thirdly to ease the pressure of the cost of living crisis. We are now working in line with business readiness, having had regular engagement with people across the sector. We have now set out, as she will have seen from the statement I made to this House in writing on 4 September and the written document published on 29 August, that we have a final time schedule.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Office for National Statistics has found that more than 50% of people are paying more for their food shop. What is the Government’s plan to bring down inflation quickly to ensure that people can feed their families?
Alex Burghart
I was trying to glimpse the British border target operating model within that question. The Government have taken a range of measures in order to help bring down the cost of living for people, notably the very considerable help we have given people with the cost of fuel.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is great to see you in the Chair so early in the day. Members will be aware that the Government attempted to sneak out in the summer that announcement about the utter chaos they have created over the border target operating model. I say to the Minister that inflation is of central relevance to this matter, because the cat is out of the bag. The Government’s own document concedes that these measures, when introduced, will have an impact on inflation and will make the cost of food even higher. Can the Minister set out what assessment has been made of the wasted money and the cost to taxpayers and businesses as a result of the Government’s chaos on this issue?
Alex Burghart
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his spot and I look forward to debating with him on this and other issues. I do not quite accept his categorisation of us as sneaking out a document by publishing it and sharing it widely on social media. As I explained to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), we have delayed implementation in response to the challenges the country has faced. We are now ready to move forward with a brand-new border target operating model, which has the support of businesses, of vets and of those dealing with sanitary and phytosanitary checks. It will be a very good thing for the country and will help us to secure our borders in new ways.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, that was announced when the House was not sitting, and to describe something that the Government concede will increase prices as a “good thing” is quite extraordinary and shows how out of touch they are.
Let me turn to another area of the Government’s incompetence. The January 2024 deadline for the rules-of-origin provisions is now rapidly approaching. Unless this matter is dealt with, it will devastate our car industry. It should have been anticipated by the Government. Can the Minister tell us when an agreement for an extension to that deadline can be secured, and what contingency plans are in place if the Government fail to do that?
Alex Burghart
On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, the document was published when it was ready; it was not hastily snuck out during recess. On his point about readiness for the trade window in the car industry, that matter is being taken seriously by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who I am sure will be ready to say something shortly.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
Cabinet Office Ministers have, through Cobra, been assisting Departments in their responses to industrial action. When there is a spate of industrial action across the public sector, which causes huge disruption to our constituents, it is particularly important that we act together, and the Cabinet Office assists Departments in their planning.
Mr Mohindra
Like many of my constituents, I commute to London daily via rail and have had to deal with another summer of disruption caused by ASLEF and the RMT, while students are applying for jobs with unconfirmed grades from unmarked exam papers and junior doctors continue to strike. What is the Minister’s Department doing to end the strikes and get those people back to work so that we can continue to clear the backlogs and reduce the inflation that they claim to be striking against?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is right: it is outrageous that his constituents can have their lives totally upended by strikes and by militant unions. We will, of course, respect the right to strike, but we have a duty to protect the lives and livelihoods of the British people. That is what our minimum service levels legislation aims to do. It is a pity that the Labour party will not support it.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Labour party governs in Wales and the Tories are in charge here in England, while Scotland is the only place in the UK to avoid any strikes in our NHS. That is because Scotland has had and will continue to have the fairest and best pay deals in the UK thanks to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Health Minister recently offered to mediate in the fresh talks between the UK Government and junior doctors. Has the Minister considered that approach given the incompetence of his colleagues?
Jeremy Quin
We will take absolutely no lessons from the SNP on how to govern countries—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman looks at the news about what is going on in Scotland or hears about it when he visits his constituency. We have in this country a Government of whom we can be proud. I am not certain that that is the view of the Scottish people.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The UK Government already award contracts on the basis of most economically advantageous tender. Furthermore, we are currently taking the Procurement Bill through Parliament, which is an opportunity to streamline procurement processes and ensure that value for money remains central to the UK’s procurement regime.
Ruth Cadbury
It is important that taxpayers get value for money when public services are outsourced. Over recent years, the Home Office has given vast sums of taxpayers’ money to Clearsprings Ready Homes, yet the accommodation that it has contracted out for housing asylum seekers has been unfit for human habitation, partly because so much taxpayers’ money is being skimmed off by unaccountable intermediaries before it reaches the hotels or food providers. What is the Cabinet Office doing to stop that sort of thing happening in outsourced services?
Alex Burghart
I am unable to comment on the specifics of that case, but on the broader point, the Procurement Bill covers a range of issues, including how we can improve quality within our supply chains. Perhaps the hon. Lady will join us for ping-pong next week.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I welcome the recent announcement that a growing number of small and medium-sized enterprises have secured Government contracts, but businesses with a social purpose and female-owned businesses are still under-represented in public procurement opportunities. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss what can be done to remedy that?
Alex Burghart
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend about this and other issues. She will know that the Procurement Bill means we are now looking at the most advantageous tender, which means that value for money remains central but that those seeking to strike up procurement can also look for other factors when deciding which contract to sign. We are very much on the same page.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
Strengthening our national resilience is a key priority for me and for the whole Government. Last month, we updated the national risk register. This is the most transparent approach ever taken by any Government, designed to help the whole of society make the most resilient plans possible. We have also published guidance clarifying lead Government Department responsibilities for risk assessment, preparedness, response and recovery.
David Duguid
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Can he tell the House what discussions he has had with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on ensuring that we have strong security of energy supply as we progress through the energy transition?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that security of energy supply is critical to our national resilience, and we have made significant progress on this. We are moving from often imported fossil fuels to clean home-grown energy sources, and I look forward to working with the new Energy Secretary on this very important issue.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The greening Government commitments prescribe all Departments to address the matter of environmentally sustainable transport management by reducing and refining their need to travel through hybrid working and the current location strategy. Departmental locations, where possible, are all within 10 minutes’ walk of a major public transport hub.
Mr Sheerman
Will this team wake up? They have huge potential in the Cabinet Office to influence every Department of State. From my perspective, as a passionate supporter of sustainable transport and particularly the revolution that is coming in hydrogen power, I see an inert Department not pushing other Departments to do better. Could they wake up and do something about this?
Alex Burghart
I can think of nothing nicer than being woken up by the hon. Gentleman. I can reassure him that we do encourage our colleagues in other Departments to go further on this. We have a range of carbon offsetting programmes in place and, as I say, our location strategy means that we try to locate people near public transport hubs. This is the very essence of a green transport strategy.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
I am delighted that, in its first year of operation, the Public Sector Fraud Authority is expected to surpass its initial targets, as part of the overall £3 billion recovery of fraud over the last two years referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. More widely, the Government have invested £1 billion in fraud and error reduction since 2022, and we continue to be recognised as a world leader in combating public sector fraud.
Mary Robinson
We know that whistleblowers are responsible for uncovering almost half of all fraud—fraud that costs the public sector an estimated £40 billion a year—yet our laws to protect and support them are not working. If we want to tackle public sector fraud, we need to encourage more people to come forward. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss how we can better support whistleblowers and tackle this vast expense to the public purse?
Jeremy Quin
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend, or one of my ministerial colleagues will. I can reassure her that we do wish to support whistleblowers. It is important that they are supported in doing what they do. We certainly respect and are grateful for information shared by whistleblowers. It is just part of the system, though, and it is important that we continue to use AI to ensure that we can track down fraud across the public sector.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, and it is of course right that as a country we honour Her late Majesty’s legacy. As a first step towards that, the Government, jointly with the royal household, have established a new Queen Elizabeth Memorial Committee. That committee will develop proposals for a permanent memorial to the late Queen and a broader legacy programme that will enable everyone in the nation to commemorate her life of service to us.
The Cabinet Office plays a critical role in strengthening our national resilience, and over the summer we published the most comprehensive edition of the national risk register to date. That important piece of work will help the Government and the whole country prepare for the challenges we face.
Ruth Cadbury
The Cabinet Office is currently carrying out a review into Homes England, and my concern is about the Help to Buy scheme, which helps people to get on to the housing ladder. The Government outsourced that service to Lenvi earlier this year, and since then my constituents have faced huge delays in getting their applications processed. Is the Minister proud of creating a Help to Buy scheme that is doing the exact opposite of what it says on the tin?
Oliver Dowden
Of course, it is incumbent on Ministers to drive efficiencies in arm’s length bodies such as Homes England. I am very happy to pick that up with my relevant ministerial colleagues.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
I have already met with Lord Janvrin, who will be leading the committee. He of course has two decades of experience in service to the royal household, including as private secretary to Her late Majesty. The aim we are working towards is that the committee will report by 2026, which would have been Her late Majesty’s 100th birthday.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I begin by associating myself with the Secretary of State’s comments on marking the anniversary of the death of the late Queen.
The responsibilities of the Cabinet Office include the National Security Council and co-ordinating the Government’s response to crises. Last night, we learned of a major breach of security with the escape from Wandsworth prison of Daniel Abed Khalife, a terror suspect who was accused of gathering information that could be useful to a hostile state. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the search for Mr Khalife, and whether—in the light of his Department’s responsibilities for national security and resilience—he has asked why such a terror suspect was being held at a lower security category prison such as Wandsworth in the first place?
Oliver Dowden
May I begin by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new position? It is wonderful that the great tradition of gingers across the Dispatch Boxes continues—although, if he does not mind, one should perhaps describe him as a legacy ginger. He brings a wealth of experience to the role, and I look forward to our exchanges.
The right hon. Gentleman is of course right to raise this case. As he will know, the Lord Chancellor has asked for an urgent investigation, working with the Prison Service to find out the exact circumstances of what happened in respect of this escape. Clearly, the initial law enforcement response will be led by the Home Office, but I will be working with the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and others to ensure that we rapidly apprehend this individual and learn the lessons of what led to this escape in the first place.
Mr McFadden
I thank the Secretary of State. I can only say to him that the hair may go but the skin remains the same, so in solidarity I wish him well in the current heat.
It is reported that Mr Khalife managed to escape by clinging to the underside of a food delivery van. This is obviously an extraordinary situation, given the strict procedures that are supposed to govern the entry and exit of vehicles on the prison estate, so can the Secretary of State outline how those procedures will now be reviewed; what other aspects of prison security will also be reviewed, and over what timescale; and when the public and Parliament will be informed of any changes made as a result of this very serious breach of security?
Oliver Dowden
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to raise all of these questions, and that is precisely what my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is overseeing with an examination into that right now. If the individual escaped in those circumstances, that clearly should not have happened. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend takes it very seriously indeed, and will of course update the House on the outcome of the investigation. Of course, the Home Secretary will update the House, alongside the Lord Chancellor, on steps to apprehend the individual.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
I thank my hon. Friend for his very important question. Alongside a lot of the support mechanisms we have introduced—Operation Fortitude, Operation Courage, Operation Restore and Operation Nova—we have a series of missions or sector initiatives for accelerating veterans who have come out of the military with specialist skills into a job and making sure those skills are not going to waste. Having a job remains the No. 1 factor in improving the life chances of veterans. Veteran employment is at 87%—it has never been higher—but there is more to do, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in the months ahead.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is clear from their actions that the Tories want to privatise our health service, selling data from England’s NHS to a Trump-backed business, Palantir, under a £27 million data deal. This was done without a competitive tender. Not only that, but they also accepted a £5 million donation from a rich health tycoon this week. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree with me that the only way to guarantee protection and integrity for Scotland’s NHS is to keep it out of Westminster Tory hands and keep it in the hands of the people of Scotland?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The hon. Lady will know, because she sat on the Procurement Bill Committee, that we have a new procurement regime coming in, but in the case she refers to it is my understanding that everything was above board and in line with due process.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Alex Burghart
As ever, my hon. Friend has his finger on the pulse. I was lucky enough to be on a work trip to Edinburgh and Glasgow just before the summer break, and all the people I met there were interested in employment, skills, the state of the health service, and law and order. Not one person raised a second referendum with me, which is because it is not among people’s priorities in Scotland. People’s priorities are the same as those of the Westminster Government.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Alex Burghart
I am very happy to look again at the hon. Lady’s work. Our general belief is that it is our actions in this place and outside it as elected representatives that will restore trust in politics rather than legislation, and that is a job for all of us.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The cost to Government of ill health runs into hundreds of billions. The economic impact of obesity alone is estimated to be over £58 billion, accounting for the cost to the NHS and social care, lost productivity, workforce inactivity and welfare payments. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is time for a taskforce to look holistically at health and societal challenges and to develop early intervention strategies on a multi-departmental basis?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those challenges. The health service—I have seen this in my own constituency—is coming up with innovative models to look at wider public health, and to address exactly that issue. We want to get more people back into the workforce, and we need to deal with some of those long-term challenges.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this issue is local to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but he is also right—I fully acknowledge this—that there may be questions to learn across Government about how we make certain that people’s data is secure. It is critical that individuals working and providing a service to the country know that their data is secure. I agree with him on that, and I have had discussions with officials about what we can to do ensure we can give that reassurance.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Will the Cabinet Office convene an inter-ministerial committee —between the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the Treasury—to consider what to do where we have built tens of thousands of houses but section 106 money has not been allocated for adequate health facilities? This is a problem across our country and on both sides of the House. I hope we will solve it for the future with what we are doing with the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and the infrastructure levy, but there is a legacy problem that needs the attention of the Cabinet Office. Given its co-ordinating role in Government, that would be a very useful thing for the Department to do, and an extremely necessary one.
Oliver Dowden
That is an interesting proposal. If we are to get public consent for the number of houses we need to build, we must be able to reassure people that the infrastructure is in place. That is precisely what the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill seeks to do. I will look at my hon. Friend’s proposal for an inter-ministerial group. I am always a little cautious about setting up more inter-ministerial groups, unless I can be sure that they will actually deliver some further outcomes, but I take his proposal seriously.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Jeremy Quin
I am sorry that strike action is ongoing. Ultimately, this is a matter between the employees and their employer.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Will the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs update the House on the Northern Ireland legacy legislation?
Johnny Mercer
Yesterday the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill passed this House. Legacy is an incredibly difficult issue. Victims have been let down for many years. Veterans have been let down. This Government made a commitment that we would see through our promises to both those groups, and that is what we did yesterday. I am disappointed that the Opposition voted against it again, but politics is about choices, and I am proud of what this Government have delivered.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Jeremy Quin
I have heard many times from the hon. Lady about this subject and about her constituents. She speaks about it passionately in this House and has done so for a number of years. I come back to my earlier answer: we paid interim compensation last year, as the House is aware, and the second interim report has come through. I am expecting the final report in the autumn, putting us in a place to respond as swiftly as possible once it is received.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Yesterday marked a year since the Prime Minister’s predecessor took office, and as you may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, a lettuce ended up outlasting her. Due to Tory economic mismanagement, that same lettuce would now cost around 20% more. The cost of food might not be an issue for the Prime Minister, who is the richest MP in the House of Commons, but it is a concern for my constituents. What discussions have Ministers had with Cabinet colleagues on tackling food insecurity?
Oliver Dowden
I know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer engage regularly with supermarkets, food providers and others to make sure that we continue to keep prices low. It is the case that since the Prime Minister came to office, we are now seeing inflation falling, and we have seen a record upward revision in growth numbers, which now show that we recovered faster from covid than any other European country, contrary to the repeated assertions of the parties on the Opposition Benches.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am going to have another go: why is it that the Minister has not been able even to implement recommendation 17 of the second interim report, which is to set up a bespoke psychological service for those infected and affected, when other nations of the United Kingdom have been able to do that? Why has England been left out? Why have the Government not been able to do that?
Jeremy Quin
That issue is being taken forward, as the right hon. Lady knows, by the Department of Health and Social Care. I know it has made substantial progress on exactly such a scheme, and I look forward to it making an announcement in due course.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The forthcoming by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West will be the first in Scotland under the new requirement for voter identification. We know that thousands of voters in England were disenfranchised at council elections because they did not have a passport or driving licence. What specific steps is the Cabinet Office taking to make sure that the voters of Rutherglen and Hamilton West, who want to turn out in their thousands to elect Katy Loudon as their MP, are not prevented from doing so because they are too poor to own a passport or driving licence?
Alex Burghart
I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that people can only vote if they have a passport or driver’s licence. If he does not know that that is untrue, he now does. We have had a widespread publicity campaign to ensure that people understand the identity requirements at elections. At the local elections, despite considerable scaremongering from Opposition parties, the disruption was minimal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes questions. I pause for a moment to allow the change of dramatis personae on the Front Bench—there is quite a lot of movement this morning.
Business of the House
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We come to business questions, and I welcome Lucy Powell to her new post as shadow Leader of the House.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 11 September—General debate on Ukraine, followed by a motion relating to appointments to the Electoral Commission.
Tuesday 12 September—Tributes to the Clerk of the House, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Online Safety Bill, followed by a debate on a motion to approve the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2023.
Wednesday 13 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Procurement Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of a Lords message on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, followed by a debate on a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2023.
Thursday 14 September—Debate on a motion on football and dementia, followed by a debate on a motion on support for bereaved children. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 15 September—The House will not be sitting.
Lucy Powell
I thank the Leader of the House for that update. She has put this job on the world stage, and I look forward to working with her. May I also welcome my deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), fresh from the Public Accounts Committee? I also welcome the new Members to their places, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather).
I am delighted to take up this important role, and I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who was a great shadow Leader of the House. I also thank some of her predecessors, too, for their advice. All of them said that this job is vital for upholding truth and democracy and for ensuring that the Government are held to account by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I fear that this is now needed more than ever.
After 13 years of this Government, our politics has increasingly been dragged into disrepute by cronyism, scandals and, as I am afraid always happens with a Tory Government, sleaze. I am sorry to say that this House, our sacred seat of democracy, has become an afterthought to a press release, a place for Ministers to avoid at all costs if they can—disrespected and disregarded by disinterested Ministers.
In this place, where Ministers used to regard it as their duty to be candid, we have seen rule breaking, evasiveness and spin, despite Mr Speaker’s valiant and often successful efforts to the contrary. Ministers do not seem to know what their power is for anymore, with
“a zombie Parliament where nothing meaningful has happened...the Government is adrift.”
That is not my verdict, but that of the former Member for Mid Bedfordshire.
The writs were moved this week for two more by-elections. Adding to the slew of others, they speak volumes about this rotten Government. Today we hear that the people of Tamworth can finally get an MP they can be proud of.
Sometimes these sessions are an occasion for levity—let’s be honest, there is plenty of material. Just this week, we had the Education Secretary’s hot mic interviews. But quite frankly, it is just not funny anymore; it is tragic. It is tragic to see this country’s reputation and potential trashed by a Tory Government that have lingered too long.
The debates and statements this week have brought no real answers about fixing crumbling schools after a decade of under-investment. Parliament and parents need answers, so can the Leader of the House provide them? Will she lay before Parliament the advice given to the Prime Minister before the spending reviews that cut funding to school rebuilding? Can she tell us exactly when the “new evidence” of the imminent danger was given to Ministers? Will she guarantee that the list of schools published yesterday is correct, and pledge that Ministers will come to Parliament to update it? Will she confirm that 19 of the schools affected had building projects cancelled in 2010? Will she lay before Parliament a full list of all public buildings affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete?
May I advise the Leader of the House not to repeat the nonsense we heard during Prime Minister’s questions yesterday? Indeed, will she first correct the record of the Prime Minister’s claims? The Leader of the Opposition has raised school building safety many times, including through Opposition day motions, which the Leader of the House voted against. Labour’s programme, which was aimed at secondary schools, was the biggest capital investment in schools for a generation, and her Government scrapped it immediately on taking office. Before criticising it again today, she might want to be reminded of the fact that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has since said that scrapping it was his “biggest mistake”.
Finally, we have had no mention of this week’s anniversary, which Conservative Members might want to forget: it is one year since the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) became Prime Minister. In the interests of parliamentary accountability, it is an important event to debate, as her six-week tenure left a crippling legacy for mortgage holders, with millions now paying hundreds of pounds a month more, thanks to her reckless decisions, all of which the Leader of the House defended and supported. At the time, the Leader of the House said that the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk had a “bold economic plan”. Will she now apologise for putting her in office and for the price the rest of us are paying for her kamikaze Budget? Will she bring forward legislation to stop the House being brought further into disrepute by the former Prime Minister’s elevating her cronies to the House of Lords? We have had no contrition.
It is the Leader of the House’s job to uphold the integrity of this place and its Members, including former Prime Ministers, in the eyes of the public. How will she ensure that Parliament can do this?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I add my voice to the many who have paid tribute to the Lionesses for their incredible achievements. We are all so proud of them, not just for the brilliant football they played, but for their conduct and the solidarity they have shown with the Spanish team.
I do wish to commemorate an important anniversary, but a different one from the one that the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) mentioned. Many right hon. and hon. Members will be thinking of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on the anniversary of her death, which is this week, and I anticipate many tributes to her service, strength and devotion to duty in the coming days.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) for her service to this House. I very much enjoyed working with her. I welcome the hon. Member for Manchester Central and her team to this place. I hope I can say congratulations to her, but I understand if commiserations are in order. The clock has struck midnight and she has had to leave the glittering ball that is the culture, media and sport brief. Gone are the growling engines of Silverstone, the champagne flutes of the Royal Opera House and the peeled grapes of BBC hospitality. Ascot’s horses have turned into House of Commons mice, and she is in the scullery with me for company. I thank her for the meeting we have already had. For my part, I will do my best to make sure that it is productive and enjoyable, and I look forward to working with her and her team.
I must reject the hon. Lady’s characterisation of both this Parliament and this Government. In this Session, 34 Government Bills have achieved Royal Assent, amounting to 1,578 pages of legislation. We have been very busy indeed, and I thank all Members of this House for their attention to that. I also reject her characterisation of this Government. She focuses on correcting the record, and I take what she says seriously and genuinely. All credit to her, she admits when she has got things wrong. She admitted that she was wrong to support the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). [Interruption.] No.
I think the hon. Lady is wrong about the Prime Minister’s comments, but I understand that she will not take my word for it, so I suggest she looks at The Times’ analysis of yesterday’s exchange, which backs the Prime Minister both on the building programme and that he did not cut the budget. I would be interested in how many times she raised RAAC as an issue in this House when she was shadow Education Secretary. Given her commitment to the facts, will she admit that Labour has got it wrong on the economy? Labour has been, wrongly, talking this nation down, but it has now been demonstrated that we have had the fastest recovery from the pandemic in the G7. That is vindication of the Prime Minister’s furlough and bounce back loan schemes.
The hon. Lady understandably focuses on the situation of school infrastructure. I remind her that Labour’s building schools programme excluded 80% of schools, and was poor value for money and highly ineffective. On a personal note, when I got my seat in 2010, my schools were so bad that a secondary school was shut because it was too dangerous to teach in and had Legionnaires’ bacteria in it. It and another in my patch have now been rebuilt, and we have a new university technical college.
The hon. Lady criticises Secretaries of State for Education, but what they have delivered means that, across England, we have 10% more good or outstanding schools, nearly 30,000 additional teachers and the best literacy outcomes in the western world. The current Education Secretary put the safety of children first, in contrast to Labour in Wales, which has not acted so swiftly, despite similar warnings. The health and safety priorities of the Labour Government in Wales appear to be focused on people buying meal deals, as opposed to a lump of concrete falling on a child’s head. That goes to show that Labour’s priorities are wrong. In bankrupt Birmingham, politically correct street names trumped paying women a fair wage. Good stewardship of public funds was trumped by utter incompetence on an epic scale. As a leaked memo from Labour headquarters said:
“Budget cuts and the size of the City are used as reasons to explain the situation however, this does not hold up under scrutiny”.
Our Prime Minister recognises that for us to be worthy of public support, we must focus on the public’s priorities: the safety and education of their kids; in particular, a strong, growing economy, lower debt and inflation; great, accessible healthcare; and border control. Where Labour is in power, and in its support of strikes and votes against our legislation, it shows that it cannot and will not deliver on those priorities of the British people.
I will close by giving the hon. Lady, on her first outing, some advice. From this Pompey supporter to that Man City supporter opposite: in politics, as in football, the blue team is always best.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
This House, as the Leader of the House is aware, takes a dim view of bullying—unless it is by me. She will be shocked to learn that Britain’s worst water company has now resorted to thuggery and strong-arm tactics to silence parliamentarians and the press. I refer, of course, to the Pennon Group, which includes the nation’s filthiest and leakiest supplier, South West Water. Its chairman, Gill Rider—who worked for the Cabinet Office and so is used to leaks, I suppose—has hired City lawyers to threaten the press and parliamentarians if we speak out against the company. She is running a mob that has convictions for polluting rivers, pays its top gun criminal bonuses and, despite the wettest July on record, still has a hosepipe ban. It is operating like a mafia. This is absolutely appalling. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on these ruddy water companies, who are blackmailing their customers and parliamentarians to stop the truth coming out?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend has raised issues related to that particular company many times in business questions, and the whole House can sense his frustration and anger with what is happening. I suggest that he may wish to raise the matter with the relevant Secretary of State on 19 October. He is an experienced parliamentarian and will know how he can achieve a debate.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the shadow Leader of the House to her post and I pay real tribute to her predecessor.
It is a bit of a surprise to us all that the Leader of the House herself is still in post, hanging on against all the odds, especially given the way her Government are unravelling day by catastrophic day. During summer recess we all saw her on her latest leadership tour in Scotland. Madam Deputy Speaker, she cannot stay away from the place. Two visits in one year—it must be a record for a Tory Minister! Speaking at a fringe event, she characterised Scotland as a “fierce and powerful nation” being held back by the “bile and hatred” of the SNP. In her reflections on her visit, the Leader of the House mounted a defence of the Union based on our “poems”, “our rivalry”, and our “blood and our brotherhood”. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have no interest in being “fierce”, whatever that means; we just want the power to govern ourselves like any modern democratic country and build a fairer, greener and more prosperous nation.
I think I know why the Leader of the House is so keen to head north of the border. It is because when she is there she sees a very different country. I could not put it better than the respected Oxford professor Danny Dorling, who said last month:
“Scotland is showing us the route to a fairer society and is helping to prevent Britain from becoming a failed state.”
Professor Dorling added:
“Scotland already has a lower proportion of children living in poverty than the most affluent region of England, which is the south east. Further progress”—
on inequality—
“has been achieved through the Scottish Child Payment…raised to £25 a week”.
And finally:
“Scotland shows us a better way forward.”
In contrast, he has described the reaction of politicians in England to addressing inequality as being to promise
“only minor remedial actions with short-term impact”.
The Leader of the House called me delusional when I pointed out to her previously Scotland’s faster economic growth, our lower unemployment and our lower rates of child poverty than the rest of the UK, and when I told her that not a single day in the Scottish NHS has been lost to industrial dispute and that we have the best paid teachers in the UK. The next time she comes back from a day trip to Scotland, can we have a debate on what she has learned from us?
Penny Mordaunt
Well, I have genuinely missed these exchanges, where the hon. Lady blames everyone except the Scottish Government, who are one of the most powerful devolved Administrations in the world. She invites me to tell the House what I learned on my very pleasant trips to Scotland over the summer. I learned that Scotland has slower economic growth than England. I was shocked to learn that Victorian diseases, such as rickets, have returned to certain cities in Scotland, and that Glasgow’s rat problem is now so bad it is precluding binmen accessing certain streets because it is too dangerous for them. I discovered that the bill to Scottish taxpayers for the smelting business debacle stands at £32 million. I discovered that £33 million, which was ringfenced for Scottish farmers, has gone AWOL. I also learned that the Scottish auditors have only been able to give a qualified sign-off to the SNP’s accounts.
I toured other parts of the UK as well. In Manchester—this may interest the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell)—I discovered that Greater Manchester police had been forced to issue a crime reference number following a complaint about the SNP giving constituency seats in return for cash. I also learned that there is a £1 billion black hole in the Scottish programme for government, which was announced this week. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for inviting me to put that on the record.
The hon. Lady seeks to blame everyone else for this situation: me, the UK Government, and anyone else who is around except the Scottish Government. This summer, a former colleague of hers even tried to blame agents of a foreign power for infiltrating the SNP and making all these terrible decisions. The SNP is never short of a grievance, but it is now running out of excuses. I look forward to hearing next week what other excuses there may be. The execution of Mary Queen of Scots? The highland clearances? The hundred years war?
The grotesque chaos and appalling public services from which the hon. Lady’s constituents and the rest of the Scottish people are suffering are entirely down to the SNP. They are now a sad, spent force, and are no longer the UK’s separatist party: that dubious honour now goes to the Labour party in Wales.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Leader of the House may be aware of a tragedy that struck a chord of sadness and anger among my constituents, in the wider Black Country, nationally and, indeed, internationally.
The building known as the Crooked House pub was built in 1765. It was symbolic of the region’s industrial heritage, and was home to tens of thousands of individual personal memories. Soon after its sale, the Crooked House was subject to an arson attack, followed by unlawful demolition, notwithstanding the local council’s instruction that that should not be done. This is an ongoing trend across the country. May we please have a debate in Government time to see what this place can do to better protect such heritage pubs?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, and I hope the approval for his question that I have just heard across both sides of the House was audible to others. I believe that this appalling incident is still subject to a police investigation, but it appears that roads leading to the pub were blocked to prevent emergency vehicles from reaching the fire. I hope I speak for all of us when I say that this is an appalling and disgraceful situation. I was encouraged by the statement from Andy Street that it would be dealt with, and that if it turned out that there had been foul play, people would be held to account. I am sure that if my hon. Friend applied for a debate it would be extremely well attended, and that he has the support of everyone in this place.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I note that she did not announce the business for Monday 18 and Tuesday 19 September, but I understand that the Government intend to award the Tuesday to the Backbench Business Committee. If that is the case, we would propose a pre-recess general debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The one that took place before the summer recess was very well subscribed and time limits were imposed, and I am sure that this would also be a popular debate.
I now need to declare an interest, in that I am the chair of the governors of a maintained primary school and a member of the board of trustees of an academy trust. One aspect of the Government’s management of the crisis over reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in schools is, on the face of it, bizarre if not perverse and wasteful: namely the fact that moving furniture from an affected school to an empty building would apparently fall under revenue costs and would not be allowable under the Government’s current proposals. If the school decided not to move furniture but to buy brand-new furniture for an empty building, that would be allowed to fall under capital costs.
That seems to me to be a very strange decision on the part of the Department for Education. Could the Leader of the House perhaps check to see whether that is indeed the case, and if it is, could she persuade the Department to change its mind about supporting revenue costs, given that that would be wasteful and unwise?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his always helpful adverts for forthcoming Backbench Business opportunities. He knows that I wish to give him as much notice as possible, and I will continue to do so when we have locked in the time.
I am all in favour of gumption being applied, and I will make sure the Secretary of State for Education, who is also in favour of gumption being applied, has heard what he has said today and makes sure all Members know the facts.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
We have manifesto commitments to ban the live export of animals for slaughter and to crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill would have delivered those promises, but it was withdrawn. When will the Government produce new legislation to keep those important promises?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this important point. We have a great track record on improving animal welfare, and our animal welfare legislation is now world leading. We are still committed to those manifesto commitments, and my committee is busy looking at these issues. She will know that further business will be announced in the usual way, but she should be reassured.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Today is 270 days since Azerbaijan began its blockade of the Lachin corridor, causing huge hardship to the population of Nagorno-Karabakh, who are under siege without basic supplies and whose suffering is getting worse. Can we have an urgent statement from a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister to make sure the Government are using all the levers they have to press Azerbaijan to comply with international obligations and lift the blockade?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this matter. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions are not until 24 October, so I will write on her behalf to make sure that Ministers have heard her concerns.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I want to praise the Rush skatepark team and stars such as Edith Bowman, Tom Smith, Andy Burrows and Katy Pearson for organising an incredible fundraising event at the Sub Rooms on Friday night. Young people are, sadly, still devastated by the council’s decision to close Rush skatepark a few years ago, but we are working to rebuild a brand-new, even better skatepark for them. I urge everyone in the district to support it. Will my right hon. Friend agree to look into how often sports such as skating, scooting and BMX get attention in this place and see whether she can find time for a debate on this life-changing set of sports and their popularity among young people?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is doing to ensure that these much-needed facilities can continue in her constituency. She is absolutely right, and I know that many Members of this House very much value sports clubs and societies, and particularly the sports she mentions. She will know that, if she were to apply for a debate, it would be well attended. We have had a number of debates on these issues quite recently.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Osteoporosis affects about 15% of the UK population, especially women. Early diagnosis is vital and could lead to many thousands of preventable deaths. The Royal Osteoporosis Society is based in Bath, and I am sure the Leader of the House and everybody here will join me in congratulating it on its excellent work. The Royal United Hospital in Bath has a specialist fracture clinic, but only half of NHS England trusts provide such clinics. Can we have a debate in the House on support for fracture liaison services and on people living with osteoporosis?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue and for the work going on in her constituency on this important matter. The next questions to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will be on 17 October, and I will therefore draw to his attention the good best practice in her constituency. Osteoporosis and brittle bones are a key cause of fractures. If we could reduce pressure on the NHS by making sure we alleviate those conditions, that would be good too.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Residents across Keighley and our wider area are getting fed up with fireworks constantly being let off throughout the night and well into the early hours of the morning. That is not limited to bonfire night; it is happening throughout the year. Many are part of celebratory events, particularly weddings, and are let off by families who have no consideration for their neighbours, which is having an impact on young people, pets and hard-working people who just want to get a decent night’s sleep so that they can get up in the morning. May we have a debate in Government time on better enforcement, holding West Yorkshire police to account, and tougher licensing provisions on the sale of fireworks? We could also look at restricting the use of fireworks to public events only.
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the first person to raise this issue. I anticipate he will be the first of several, as this is a common theme at this time of the year. He has raised his concerns with regard to his constituents and I shall make sure the relevant Secretary of State has heard those by writing on his behalf today. I suggest that the Backbench Business Committee might be the best place to secure a debate. Having been in this job for a year, I know that such a debate is likely to be well supported and well attended.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Leader of the House aware that Guy’s and St Thomas’s hospitals, where many of us have benefited from treatment, are among the very few of our hospitals at the top of the world rankings? Why do so few of our constituents live near a world-class hospital? What has gone wrong in the past 13 years with our health service, where we have so few of the world’s leading hospitals?
Penny Mordaunt
We have many fabulous hospitals. When I came into this House in 2010, my local hospital was the worst in the country for MRSA and clostridium difficile infections, but it is now a fantastic hospital. Health outcomes have improved there, despite all the stresses of the pandemic, and we have a new accident and emergency department being built, which will open next year. That is the story of many places around the UK. We should be celebrating and talking up the fantastic hospitals in this country, just as we should be talking up our strong economy and all the opportunities we have here since we left the European Union. I hope that one day the Labour party will do that.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The record 1,455 police officers in Bedfordshire achieved under the leadership of Chief Constable Trevor Rodenhurst and the police and crime commissioner Festus Akinbusoye are very welcome. However, we face a serious problem with shoplifting, with a low proportion of police turning out when shops notify them and an even lower number of convictions. I have some shops locally where store managers are telling the shoplifters to take what they can so long as they do not hurt the staff. This is simply unacceptable in a cost of living crisis, when poorer people and all of us have to end up paying more. May we have a debate in which we can raise these issues and make clear to the Home Office this House’s views on shoplifting and the action that the police need to take?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point, and he is absolutely right in what he says. Small shops are lifelines for communities; it is a sorry state of affairs if they are not able to thrive and are disincentivised from continuing their business. He will know that, leaving aside fraud and computer crime, we have halved crime since 2010, on roughly the same—slightly more—resource. That is a tremendous record, but there is more to be done, with a particular focus on antisocial behaviour and these kinds of crimes. He will know that the Home Office recently said that every crime of this nature needs to be followed up and investigated. I will make sure that the Home Office has heard what my hon. Friend has said. I think such issues will be the focus of many colleagues in the coming weeks.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I have written to petrol providers in Barnsley asking them to lower prices, because they are regularly 3p a litre higher, if not more, than in neighbouring areas in Yorkshire. Indeed, this week it is cheaper to get petrol in central London than in Barnsley. I simply do not believe that motorists in Barnsley should be paying a petrol premium, so will the Government make a statement on what they are doing to tackle local and regional price disparity?
Penny Mordaunt
That is a very important issue which will affect many households in the hon. Lady’s constituency, as well as businesses. She will know that the Government have acted and are setting up what Fair Fuel UK has called a PumpWatch scheme. The Competition and Markets Authority is now establishing a number of measures to ensure that there is fair pricing at the pump and that competition is improved. She will know that the Government have done other things to help her constituents and to lower the cost of fuel. In the same time that Labour put up fuel duty by 46%, we have lowered it by 7.5%.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
On the eve of the rugby world cup, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Aramis Rugby, a North Devon-based manufacturing company, on providing all the scrum machines used in this year’s tournament? Following the success of the Lionesses and with England hosting next year’s women’s rugby world cup, can we have a debate in Government time on the links between hosting sports events and participation in sports?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that and giving us the opportunity again to celebrate the successes of women in sport, as well as the fantastic news of our hosting the next women’s rugby world cup. That is wonderful news and we have a great record of hosting such events. Since 2012, we have hosted over 130 sporting events, which is a great record to be proud of. I will make sure that her enthusiasm has been heard by the relevant Minister.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Leader of the House will be alarmed to learn that the police have confirmed that last year there were 15 attacks on war memorials in Northern Ireland—atrocious, despicable attacks, where poppies were ripped off, plaques removed and there was criminal damage. Last year there were five arrests for those terrible events and some of those cases are ongoing. Does the Leader of the House think it would be appropriate to have a debate on this issue, or is there a better way of raising awareness so that the public can express their concern and outrage at those attacks?
Penny Mordaunt
I am extremely sorry to hear that. I know that for many local communities who tend those memorials that will be a hugely upsetting thing to have happened. It is incredibly important that those memorials are protected. If the hon. Gentleman were to apply for a debate, I think it would be extremely well attended. I will make sure that the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence have heard his concerns.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Last weekend, I was thrilled to attend Southend City Jam, an international festival of street art. It is the largest in Europe and displayed 240 artists from around the world, including Brian Lewis, known as JEKS, from North Carolina, who is in the Public Gallery, along with his girlfriend, Melissa. Given the festival brought in over 200,000 visitors to the new city of Southend, can we have a debate on the role of street art as part of our rich cultural heritage?
Penny Mordaunt
It sounds like an absolutely wonderful event. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it, as well as our visitors, to the House’s attention. She will know that almost £5 million in Arts Council England funding has been awarded to 162 organisations involved in street art or graffiti art, which is an important part of our culture. She may also wish to give the subject another airing at the next Culture, Media and Sport questions, the date of which is to be confirmed.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Section 71 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 requires that by April 2023 the Government lay before Parliament a report on spiking. That deadline has long passed and the Government are now facing threats of legal action for failing to meet their statutory duty. The longer the Government dither and delay, the more vulnerable people are put at risk. Can the Leader of the House confirm the precise date that she expects the report to be laid before Parliament?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. I will make sure that the Home Secretary has heard her concerns and contacts her office with an update. The next questions to the Home Office will be on 18 September.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Many of my constituents have contacted me to express concern about the delay in passing regulations on the use of electronic collars. Electronic collars work by delivering an electronic pulse to suppress unwanted behaviour, which can be painful and frightening and even decrease the animal’s ability to learn, so I was pleased that in April the Government announced a very welcome ban on their use. However, no date has been set for the final stages of legislation. More than 90% of the population are in favour of implementing a ban as soon as possible on this cruel practice. Does my right hon. Friend agree, and can she confirm a timetable for bringing forward this important piece of legislation?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is right that we are committed to this matter. We are not intending to ban things such as perimeter fencing, which protect animals, but shock collars cause unnecessary suffering. I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard her keenness for an update. She will know that the next Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions are not until 19 October, so I will write to the Department today on her behalf.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell)—my good friend and Greater Manchester neighbour—on her appointment to her new position as shadow Leader of the House. I know that she will do an excellent job. I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on being appointed her deputy.
As Britain and India negotiate a trade agreement, it is important that benefits of such a deal are shared across the regions and nations. Despite a large community of people of Indian heritage and many Indian businesses in the north of England, and the fact that Manchester airport, a stone’s throw from my constituency, is the third busiest airport in the UK, there are no direct flights between Manchester and India. Will the Leader of the House therefore grant a debate in Government time on connectivity from Manchester airport to international destinations and the potential benefit that that would bring to the north-west and, indeed, to the rest of the country for trade, culture, family ties and our educational institutions?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and, as a former trade policy Minister, I can tell him that one of the benefits of more regular economic dialogue with our partner nations is to address precisely those things. In fact, part of my visits to various countries around the world, including the United States, was about securing extra flight routes into his local area. It is tremendously important, not least because we want to attract investment and businesses to those areas. He will know that we will not be having live discussions about trade deals, but I know that such accessibility will be very much part of the discussions and script from which our Ministers will be working.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Car insurance firms often increase premiums after a crash even if the accident is caused entirely by the negligence of another driver. For one of my constituents, Ageas increased her premium by 40% after filing a no-fault claim, despite the fact that the car was parked legally and my constituent was not even in the vehicle when the crash happened. This is because, statistically, those who file any claim are deemed by the insurance companies more likely to make a future claim. That assumption completely ignores individual circumstances and is extremely unfair to those who make no-fault claims. Can we have a debate in Government time on this system and on what steps can be taken to prevent insurance companies from making these unfair assumptions and fleecing our constituents, particularly at a difficult time regarding the cost of living?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what he has identified as a very important issue. He is an experienced parliamentarian and will know how to apply for debates. I am sure that if he did apply for one, it would be extremely well attended. In raising this matter today, he has given insurance companies the opportunity to respond to this concern. If there are any public affairs officers from the major insurance firms listening to this debate, I would encourage them to take to social media this afternoon to clarify their policies on this area. I am sure that we would all applaud them if they stepped up and gave their policyholders an excellent service.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The covid pandemic affected all of us, but the most devastatingly affected were the families who lost loved ones, and they are still being affected. Next Wednesday I will launch my new film, “The Unequal Pandemic”, which focuses on three families’ experience. It reveals that, instead of being the great leveller that the Government said that it would be, the pandemic exposed deep structural inequalities, affecting who and where was most impacted. I would love to see the Speaker of the House and all Members at the launch, but will the Leader of the House allow for a debate specifically on what we can do to ensure that the inequalities that affected the experience of the pandemic are addressed adequately?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this matter and advertising this event. She is absolutely right, particularly as the covid inquiry looks at these matters, that the experiences and concerns of those who lost loved ones should be at the forefront. It was a terribly traumatic few years for everyone, with the isolation and the additional pressures that people faced. To lose, in some cases, multiple family members during such a time is incredibly hard to metabolise and bear. She will know how to apply for a debate, but if she sends the details to my office I shall look at ways I can support this.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
My constituents generally support reaching net zero, but not when we put in front of them the estimated increase in costs to their family to pay for it, not least the additional costs of green tariffs on energy bills, moving away from gas boilers, banning new petrol cars, and so on. The transition to net zero is estimated to cost around £1 trillion and will invariably be borne by hard-working families who can least afford it. Having debated the Energy Bill this week, would now be an opportune time to consider holding a debate on the estimated costs of net zero and how it will affect ordinary families in this country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I have great sympathy with what he outlines. I would not just say, “What is the fair and right thing to do?” If we want to be successful in making this transition, and helping other countries to do so, we can do that only with technology, solutions and innovation that people will love and want to adopt, and that will make their bills cheaper and their lives easier. That is the only way we will be successful in meeting our environmental ambitions. I encourage him to apply for a debate, and to focus on not just the costs, but the value of innovation and how we can encourage British businesses to be at the forefront of it, and take their ideas and sell them to the world.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
This Sunday is World Suicide Prevention Day, and so many organisations and groups will be working hard to highlight the need for all of us to work towards preventing suicides—groups such as If U Care Share in the north-east, which will be running its “Inside Out” campaign, as well as national charities. I hope that Members from across the House will help to spread the message that it is good to talk, to reduce suicides. As we await the publication of the national suicide prevention strategy—imminently, I believe —can we have a debate in Government time on the strategy and how we can prevent suicide?
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of everyone here I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important awareness moment and giving us all the opportunity in this place to thank the many local groups that will be dealing not only with this issue specifically, but with improving mental health and wellbeing and mental resilience in our communities. I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State hears that there is a keenness to have a debate on the strategy when it is produced, and the hon. Lady will know the actions she can take to secure one.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
With her legendary attention to detail, no doubt the Leader of the House has seen this morning’s report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies—an authoritative report showing that so deep now are the class and regional differences in our society that social mobility has been reversed by more than 50 years. Can we have a debate in Government time so that we can address the issue, particularly for poorer families in the north of England whose children find it difficult to share in the success that this society allegedly promises them?
Penny Mordaunt
Historically the UK has had slower social mobility over many decades; that is improving, but there is more that needs to be done in this area. That will only be helped by people being able to get into work and make progress through work. That is why I supported our reforms on universal credit and why I think we should be celebrating getting 4 million people into work, there being 1 million fewer workless households, and 1 million of that 4 million being disabled people who would not have had the dignity of a pay packet had we not brought in those reforms. Focusing on opportunities for young people, we should celebrate our emphasis on alternative routes other than pure, traditional university degrees: apprenticeships and ensuring that young people are in education, employment and training.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It has been a very stressful week for parents worried about their children returning to schools and whether they are safe. Now I understand that the list produced by the Department is inaccurate and that some schools have been told that they should close yet they are not on the list. I remember the confusion, chaos and further distress that was also caused when the Building Schools for the Future list went out. This affects all our constituents, so it is not a party issue. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House ensured that the information the Department for Education sends to all our constituents is clear on what is happening with the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete issue across the country.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. If we want to reduce the stress levels that people are undergoing, we must ensure that information is timely and accurate. I know that that is what the Secretary of State for Education is looking to achieve. I will raise this with the Department and ensure that the list, if there are errors on it, is dealt with. I will also ask for a point of contact for Members, if they have not already been issued one. In situations such as this, it is important to be able to get hold of someone to confirm whether something is accurate, or when local issues crop up that need to be resolved quickly. I shall certainly recommend that the Secretary of State does that. I know that she wants to ensure that Members have answers to questions they want to raise and that her Department is delivering a good service to this House.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
On Wednesday 6 September the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, published its report into local authority-administered covid support schemes in England. It found that, of an estimated £1.1 billion of fraud so far, less than 2% has been recovered. While schools, local councils, hospitals and prisons are crumbling due to a lack of funding, does the Leader of the House agree that this Government failure urgently needs to be addressed, and will she commit to providing Government time to discuss it?
Penny Mordaunt
It is incredibly important that we learn the lessons from the pandemic and the Government are very keen to do that. What I would say to such criticism is that all fraud is bad and we want to ensure that it is eliminated and money is recovered, but at the time the Government were right to act swiftly to ensure we were able to keep households and businesses going. The fact that we have now been able to show that our economy has recovered the swiftest out of comparable nations has demonstrated that that approach was right, whether through the furlough scheme, the bounce back loans or the other support that was provided to businesses. Where we can recover funds we will and we must; it is appalling that organisations, particularly bogus businesses, committed fraud at that particular moment of national crisis and need, and we should throw the book at those people.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I also welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) to their new Front-Bench roles. The shadow Leader of the House alluded to the fact that this time last year, the Leader of the House backed her “hope candidate” and said:
“Who can lead? Who can build that team and deliver for our country? Who does have that bold economic plan that our nation needs?... I’ve seen enough to know…the person I’m going to put my faith in”.
Of course, that person was not the current Prime Minister but the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). Can we have a debate in Government time on the achievements of her “hope candidate”?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman tempts me. I will give him some achievements of the right hon. Member to whom he refers—I hope that he has given her notice of his question, but I suspect that he has not, because I am sure that she would have been here to tell him herself. I think that we ought to recognise that she delivered a lot for this country, including some of the first from-scratch trade deals. She served in many Departments, including the Treasury. I would be very happy to have a cup of tea with him and talk about the things that she did in the service of this country.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
My constituents who work in the Defence Equipment and Support depot in Beith will engage in strike action on Monday over the unequal application of bonus payments, which has created a two-tier workforce. Strike action is unprecedented in DE&S, which currently supplies important equipment to Ukraine. I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Defence. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out her support for those workers, and will she urge management at the depot to provide parity and fairness for their workforce?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point and for highlighting the impact that such action may have. Our commitment to Ukraine and the other partners we work with is unwavering. It is obviously critical that we have a good supply chain to ensure that they are able to continue their heroic efforts. I do not know the details of the dispute. She says that she has already raised it—quite rightly—with the Secretary of State for Defence, but if she thinks that there is anything else I can do to assist her in resolving the situation, my door is always open.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
In 1958, 65 years ago, thalidomide was first marketed in the UK. It was withdrawn three years later in 1961. One hundred thousand babies were affected worldwide; 90% were miscarried or stillborn. Sadly, of the 10,000 victims who survived to birth, fewer than 3,000 are alive today, and about 400 of them are in the UK. Can we have a debate on why it took this House until 1972, 11 years after the withdrawal of the dangerous drug thalidomide, to hold a debate on that issue and get compensation for the victims? I am sure that this House would want to ensure that mistakes made over dangerous pharmaceuticals are never repeated.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman has placed on record those historical events and the fact that, through this House, compensation was after many years quite rightly paid to those individuals. He will know that there are currently live inquiries, not least—I look at the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on the Labour Back Bench—on the infected blood scandal, which has taken at least three decades to get an inquiry and to be resolved. I am very proud that this Government set up that inquiry under a former Prime Minister, and to have been the Minister who kickstarted and established, with Sir Robert Francis, the compensation study. I recently gave evidence to the inquiry; the hon. Gentleman might like to read it to reassure himself of the commitment of this Government, and of the whole House—I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North for her diligent campaigning on the issue—to protecting patients where things go wrong. We want to do right by them.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
That is a great segue into my question. The Leader of the House appeared before the reconvened infected blood inquiry in July, along with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Paymaster General, so she knows very well the views of Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the inquiry, and the feelings of those infected and affected. Could she give an undertaking to this House that, as soon as the final report is published by Sir Brian, there will be an oral statement on the Floor of the House and the Government will come forward with an action plan to implement all the recommendations in the interim report, which they have had since April this year, so that finally people can receive the compensation they have been long due?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising this, and I will certainly make sure that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has heard her request. I would think it very unusual for such a huge piece of work that is of such great interest to so many in this House not to be accompanied by a statement on the matter.
Even if we include those who have been affected, as well as infected, it is a comparably small number of people, but we often forget that what happened to these individuals could happen to all of us. It was not risky behaviour or something they were doing; they simply were accessing healthcare, or they were the partners of someone who had accessed healthcare, been infected and did not know they were infected, and people have been impacted in many other ways. This affects all of us—it affects everyone in this country—and that is why it is particularly important.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to see the Leader of the House back in her place. As Members will know, each week I bring a focus upon persecution across the world, and this week we focus upon Pakistan because of what is happening. On Monday past, an Ahmadi mosque in Karachi was destroyed. In August, eight Christian churches in the Punjab were burned in just one day. In July, two Hindu temples and a shrine were destroyed in Karachi over a weekend. Pakistan is experiencing a surge of violence towards religious minorities, fuelled by a rise in blasphemy allegations. Will the Leader of the House join me in requesting a statement on those cases and recommend ways in which the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office can increase monitoring at this time?
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of the whole House, I thank the hon. Gentleman for again using business questions to shine a spotlight on the issues of persecution and intolerance of freedom of religion and belief around the world. I thank him for shining a spotlight on what is going on in Pakistan. He will know that, historically, in terms of finance and people on the ground, our strongest bilateral mission from the FCDO is with Pakistan, and we will have great influence there. I shall certainly make sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard what he has said and ask him to follow up with the hon. Gentleman’s office.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Could I please raise the issue of the high street chain Wilko? It strikes me that the current outcome, which includes the loss of half the stores and all the jobs for a paltry sum, 13 million quid, is suboptimal when we consider the fact that the chain turned over more than £1 billion last year, and there are businesses across the UK, including one in Berkshire, that would have been happy to bid more than £100 million for the whole business and all the jobs. I accept that this is a commercial consideration, but could the Leader of the House please represent my concerns with the Department for Business and Trade? We should be prioritising jobs over creditors.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very sad situation, which I know will be of concern to many individuals. It is obviously a commercial decision, but this is a very worrying time for employees; the swiftness of the timeframe is also worrying. On behalf of my hon. Friend, I will write to not only the Department for Business and Trade but the Department for Work and Pensions, which in similar circumstances has also provided support to the workforce. I will ask both Departments to contact my hon. Friend’s office, and I thank him on behalf of many Members of this House for raising this matter, as it will affect a number of parts of the country.
HMPPS Update
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we come to the statement, I remind the House that the individual in question has been charged with criminal offences, and that the House’s sub judice resolution applies to those charges. Members should therefore take care to avoid referring to the details of those charges or saying anything that assumes the guilt or innocence of the individual concerned.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your permission, I would like to make a statement on the escape from HMP Wandsworth yesterday morning, Wednesday 6 September, of a prisoner by the name of Daniel Abed Khalife.
Daniel Khalife was remanded in custody at HMP Wandsworth on 28 January this year, having been charged with offences alleged to have taken place in 2021 while he was serving in the armed forces. As you have already indicated, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House will understand that, while a live criminal investigation is in progress, there are limits on what I can properly say. Daniel Khalife will be caught in due course and will face a trial. Nothing should be said in this House or elsewhere that might prejudice those proceedings, so let me assist the House with what I can say.
At approximately 7.30 am yesterday, a vehicle that had made a delivery to the prison’s kitchen left HMP Wandsworth. Shortly afterwards, local contingency plans for an unaccounted prisoner were activated and, in line with standard procedure, the police were informed. The prison was put into a state of lockdown while staff attempted to determine Daniel Khalife’s whereabouts. The vehicle was stopped and searched by police after the alert was raised. Strapping was found underneath the vehicle, which appeared to indicate that Daniel Khalife may have held on to the underside of it in order to escape. The search is under way. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is giving every assistance to the Metropolitan police’s operation to recapture Daniel Khalife and return him to custody. As has been made clear by the Metropolitan police, there is no reason to believe he poses a threat to the wider public.
Yesterday, when I was first briefed on this grave security breach, I spoke to the governor of HMP Wandsworth and senior HMPPS leaders to establish what was known about the escape and seek assurances about the immediate measures being taken to ensure the security of the prison. I made clear then, and I reiterate now, that no stone must be left unturned in getting to the bottom of what happened. Who was on duty that morning, and in what roles, ranging from the kitchen to the prison gate? What protocols were in place, and were they followed? Secondly, I have ordered an investigation into the categorisation decision by HMPPS: were all relevant matters taken into consideration in determining where in the custodial estate Daniel Khalife should be held? In both cases, I have asked for the preliminary findings to be with me by the end of this week. An assessment will then be made of what can properly be put into the public domain. I have also decided that there will need to be an additional independent investigation into this incident, which will take place in due course.
I now turn to the wider prisoner cohort held by HMPPS. In the light of these events, I have ordered two urgent reviews: first, into the placement and categorisation of everyone held in HMP Wandsworth and, secondly, into the location of all those in the custodial estate charged with terrorism offences.
Let me turn now to the issue of prison security. As the House will no doubt be aware, escapes from prison are extremely rare and the numbers have declined substantially in the last 10 to 15 years. This has been due in considerable part to sustained investment in improved physical and intelligence security. That includes investment of £100 million in the period since 2019 on measures, such as enhanced gate security with X-ray body scanners, which has driven up the finds of drugs, weapons and other contraband, including tools that could be used to aid an escape from prison. HMPPS has also enhanced intelligence and anti-corruption operations in prisons, working more closely than ever with partners, including the intelligence agencies. This has involved productive initiatives, such as setting up the joint counter-terrorism prisons and probation hub.
Daniel Khalife will be found, and he will be made to face justice. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I reiterate our support for the police and all those who are involved in the search to recapture Daniel Khalife. I very much hope that that search will be brought to a swift and successful conclusion so that the rest of the legal process may take place.
This is an extremely serious matter, and it has highlighted catastrophic and multiple failures in respect of not just this case, but our wider criminal justice system. It simply beggars belief that a man being held on suspected terror charges was able to escape prison by clinging to the bottom of a food delivery van. The simplest question for the Justice Secretary today is: how on earth was that allowed to happen? How is such an escape even possible? Nothing that he has said to the House so far gets us remotely close to a full answer to that central question.
I know the Justice Secretary will say when he responds to me that it is early days, that he has ordered the relevant investigations and that they must have some time to conclude. But with respect, it gives me no confidence that the Justice Secretary has today arrived with a list of basic questions that, frankly, he should already know some of the answers to and be able to share with the House. I note with complete agreement both what he said and your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker, that nothing must be said either in the Chamber or anywhere else that may prejudice any future trial or indeed the live operation that is currently under way, but the circumstances and the facts of the escape itself are a separate matter that is of legitimate and urgent concern to this House and to the wider public. That is separate from the nature of any and all charges that will form the basis of future trials or other investigations. The Justice Secretary really does need to give much fuller answers to the House, rather than a list of his own questions.
On the circumstances of the escape itself, can the Justice Secretary at least tell the House when he responds how many staff were on duty at Wandsworth prison yesterday? Is he confident and can he tell us that all the relevant searches were done and, where there are failures, the number of protocols that he is concerned may have been breached? Will his investigations assess the quality of the training and the experience of prison staff at HMP Wandsworth, and will he be bringing in any additional expertise to assist with those matters while he is getting on top of the facts himself?
In respect of the categorisation of this particular prisoner, why was a suspected terror offender held at a category B jail while on remand, despite many other suspected and indeed convicted terrorists being held in the high security estate? Why was Daniel Khalife moved from Belmarsh to Wandsworth? Can the Justice Secretary at least tell us whether a risk assessment was undertaken before any such move took place? That is at least a yes or a no answer. Can he tell us how many similar suspects are in category B or indeed in HMP Wandsworth, and what is the timescale for such an assessment?
In relation to the two urgent reviews, may I say to the Justice Secretary that, with respect, it should be a relatively short exercise to get across the detail of the total number of the current prison population at Wandsworth? The fact that he has not come to the House with even that small amount of detail is unacceptable.
On the location of all those charged with terror offences, will the Secretary of State tell us the total number of individuals who are considered to be in that category as of today, across the whole prison estate? When will that urgent review of those numbers—I hope he can share the total number—take place? I accept that he cannot share any details, but does he know the number of individuals who might be of concern and may need to be moved to a different location, given yesterday’s events?
I note that the Secretary of State has ordered a fuller investigation, but can he say anything about the terms of reference for such an investigation? What timescale does he envisage for that longer, fuller investigation? On the matter of independence, can he provide some reassurance that he will ensure that it will not be a case of him, and others who are ultimately responsible for this failure, marking their own homework? What consideration has he given to the independence and identity of who might be carrying out that investigation for him?
The developments of the past 24 hours have shown us yet another example of the Conservative mismanagement that has meant they are unable to run vast swathes of the public realm, whether that is schools, threatening our children’s education and learning, or now with a terror suspect on the loose. Ultimately, one of the main functions of a Government is to keep their citizens safe, and on the Secretary of State’s watch, courts are in crisis, probation is in crisis, the Crown Prosecution Service is in crisis, and prisons are in crisis. When will he get a grip?
Alex Chalk
I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her place, and I will try to address the points she raises. I was pleased to hear her remarks about not wanting to prejudice a future trial, because we must keep in mind that escape is a criminal offence. She asks whether there will be inquiries into the staff on duty and the quality of training. Absolutely; that is precisely what I have asked to take place. She asks whether additional expertise is in place. Yes, that is already in place in Wandsworth at the moment, assisting with the investigation. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I want to know who was on duty in the kitchens and at the gate, what protocol was in place, and whether it was applied. If it was not applied, why not? Those are all questions I have asked, and she can be assured that they will be answered.
On timing, I have already indicated that I want to have the preliminary answers on my desk by the end of this week. I will then be able to make a decision, considering all relevant information, about what can be put into the public domain. However, we have to proceed carefully and on the basis of evidence. I say that because the hon. Lady raised a question that was factually incorrect. She asked why Daniel Khalife was “moved from Belmarsh”, but he was never in Belmarsh. With respect, it is important that we do not proceed on the basis of misinformation, and I hope I make that point clear. I absolutely understand the proper public interest and points that are being raised. That is fine, but if the hon. Lady needs to ask me any questions about matters of detail, she has my number and she can call.
On who is held on the category B estate, that is exactly what I have asked of the inquiry that has been set up. I mean no discourtesy, but I think the hon. Lady may have misunderstood what I was suggesting by means of an inquiry. This is not an inquiry into the number of prisoners in Wandsworth, which is a matter of public record; this is about whether the right people are in Wandsworth, and whether those Wandsworth prisoners should be there or elsewhere. That is what needs to be answered.
On the independence of the investigation, of course that is right, and that is precisely why I have ordered it. In summary, this is a grave incident—the hon. Lady is right about that, and plenty of the points she raises are perfectly legitimate and we will get answers as quickly as possible. But we need to proceed on the basis of evidence, coolly and calmly, so that when Daniel Khalife is caught, as he will be, he will be brought to justice and justice will be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, for his courtesy in giving me notice of it, and for the characteristic thoroughness and care with which he has approached this matter. He is clearly going into the detail in a careful and measured fashion, which is the right approach. I also congratulate the shadow Secretary of State and welcome her to her post.
First, the Secretary of State has accepted the need for an independent element, and the Justice Committee has more than once referred to the need to avoid the Prison Service marking its own homework. Will he bear in mind in that regard the work that has already been done by His Majesty’s chief inspectors of prison and probation in relation to Wandsworth and other prisons? They have real expertise, and I hope he will avail himself of it.
Secondly, in relation to his wider inquiry into the prison situation, when on the face of it there has been a significant improvement in gate security, the failure of gate security on this occasion is all the more alarming. It is a matter of record that there is an issue with staffing at Wandsworth and with retaining experienced staff across the Prison Service. We have a large number of comparatively inexperienced staff. Evidence submitted to the Justice Committee’s inquiry on the prison workforce demonstrates concern over levels of training in some establishments. Will the Secretary of State make sure that those points are fully taken on board as part of a serious review of prison workforce on the back of this?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to these matters. As I have indicated, the inquiry must take its course and the issue of staffing will no doubt be considered. Necessarily, we cannot go into a huge amount of detail, but what I can say is that in all prisons staff take on different roles. On the specific issue of staffing at the security end of the prison, the positions were staffed and the security posts were occupied. The question is whether protocols were applied, and indeed whether people did what was expected of them under those protocols. We need to get to the bottom of that urgently.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. My party hopes Khalife will soon return to custody. Leaving aside the extraordinary manner of the details of the escape, some more immediate questions arise. Mr Khalife may have been believed to pose a low risk to members of the public, but he was clearly thought to present a considerable risk to his service colleagues and to national security. As such, it will strike people as extraordinary that he was being held under category B conditions, rather than category A, pending any trial.
What is more extraordinary is that prison inspectors reported concerns in January last year about the measures in place at Wandsworth to prevent escapes, after finding what they believed to be potential shortcomings in physical aspects of security locally on site. It was also alarming to hear the former head of security at Wandsworth, Ian Acheson, on the radio this morning saying that, on any given day, some 30% to 40% of frontline staff are unavailable for duty at the prison.
The Prison Officers Association has highlighted that some £900 million has been stripped out of prison budgets in England and Wales since 2010, which will leave more prisons than just Wandsworth overcrowded and under-resourced. The Prison Officers Association’s national chair has called this morning for an urgent review of how prisons across England and Wales are run. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has announced two separate strands of inquiry from the Dispatch Box, which I am sure will be welcomed, but will he expand the scope of his questioning to allow for that inquiry into how the Prison Service across England and Wales is run, in the light of the concerns that have been expressed?
Alex Chalk
May I deal with the hon. Gentleman’s second point first? Prison officers do an extremely important job, and I will of course listen carefully to what the Prison Officers Association has to say about this matter. I have already had a meeting—albeit predating this incident, as he might expect—and that productive and constructive relationship will continue.
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point about categorisation, because I am instinctively sympathetic to his point about why this prisoner was in the category B estate. That is precisely what I want to have some information about, but we have to proceed with caution. Although we are not going to look at the details of the specific offences, section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an either-way offence. There are other offences that are either-way. It is not the case, and never has been since the Terrorism Act was created 23 years ago, that everyone charged with a section 58 offence would be in the cat A estate. Were that to happen, it would turn the whole system of categorisation on its head. It is an offence I have prosecuted many times in the past. We need to ensure that we are looking at the detail of what he was charged with and the specific risk or otherwise that he may have presented.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I echo the comments of the Chair of the Justice Committee about the tone and thoroughness of the Lord Chancellor’s statement, and particularly his commitment to leaving no stone unturned. However, the presence of strapping on the underside of the vehicle would seem to indicate that some planning was involved. As well as the Lord Chancellor’s questions about protocols and staffing arrangements, is there any implication that the prisoner may have had some assistance with the escape?
Alex Chalk
I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it as a discourtesy when I say that nothing has occurred to him about lines of inquiry that has not occurred to me, my ministerial colleagues and members of HMPPS. All lines of inquiry are being considered, including all those that I am sure are occurring to hon. Members.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
People in Tooting are alarmed that someone could escape from what is supposed to be an extremely secure prison. A few months ago, I raised the issue of low staffing levels with the Justice Secretary because I had concerns after speaking to Battersea and Wandsworth trades union council. My parliamentary question revealed that, shockingly, only seven prison officers turned up for a night shift last December to cover 1,500 inmates. That is unworkable and unsafe. Staff are having to do double shifts, with officers facing violence and abuse and struggling with their mental health. That makes staff retention impossible. In those circumstances, mistakes will happen.
Will the Secretary of State list the meetings that he has held with the prison leadership since I raised the alarm many months ago? Will he also tell us the average number of staff per shift at Wandsworth prison and the number of staff forced to take “payment plus” overtime shifts?
Sadly, this escape is not the only significant challenge that the prison has faced recently. In November, it was without water for six days. Prisoners could not wash and had to rely on bottled water. There is an endemic problem throughout our public services owing to 13 years of Tory mismanagement. School buildings are crumbling, our prisons are overstretched and falling apart and our NHS is under-resourced. When will the Government get a grip and sort it out?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady began by expressing concern on behalf of her constituents. She was right to raise that. I invite her and her constituents to consider the remarks of the Metropolitan police that the prisoner is believed to be a low risk to the community. It is important to stress that in the House.
It is an overriding and overwhelming priority for me to increase staff numbers, and I am pleased that they are increasing. Of course, I want them to go up further, but it is positive to note that, since 30 June, there has been an increase of more than 700 full-time equivalent band 3 to band 5 staff—wing officers up to custody managers. I accept that we have further to go. However, it is also encouraging that the resignation rate is coming down. I do not suggest for a second that the work is completed—it is not, and it is perfectly fair for the hon. Lady to raise those points—but we are moving in the right direction.
On the third point, the preliminary indications, subject to the investigations that I have ordered, are that the security posts were manned in Wandsworth at the time of the incident. We now need to know, given that they were manned, what went wrong.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
I welcome the assurances that the Secretary of State has given about the investigations that will now follow. Can he update the House on what steps the Government are taking to increase security across the prison estate as part of the Department’s £4 billion investment in increasing the number of prison places?
Alex Chalk
It is worth stepping back and reflecting for a moment on the fact that the programme of infra- structure investment in prisons is second in Government only to HS2. A huge amount of investment is going into our prisons and I have seen what that can do. I have been to HMP Five Wells and HMP Fosse Way. Millsike is under construction. Those are modern, safe, secure, decent and rehabilitative prisons. On my hon. Friend’s specific point about security, as part of the overall scheme, we have put £100 million into enhanced gate security and X-ray scanners that can check for illegally concealed contraband. That is driving up seizures and driving down violence in prisons. Of course there is more to do, but that investment is yielding significant results.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State was surprised that Daniel Khalife was allowed to work in the kitchens, a role that I understand is for trusted inmates?
Alex Chalk
That is precisely a question that has occurred to me and that I want answered, by the end of the week I would hope and expect, but certainly in very short order.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
This escape is incredibly serious and leaves many questions unanswered. It was reported by the Metropolitan police on social media yesterday that the escaped prisoner has links to Kingston. My constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), naturally, will be very concerned. I appreciate that the Secretary of State will be limited in what he can say about the operation to apprehend the prisoner, but I would be grateful for any statement he can make to provide reassurance to my constituents and residents across south-west London.
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those points on behalf of her constituents. We all have a duty, which she will uphold as well as anyone else, to ensure that people are not alarmed. I draw her attention and that of her constituents to the Metropolitan police’s remarks that the man should not be approached, but that he is considered to be low risk, and not a larger risk to the wider public.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I remind the Justice Secretary that this is a very serious incident. Any prison escape is serious, but we should put it in perspective. I remember when he was very young, and before I was shadow prisons and policing Minister, back in 1966, the notorious spy and traitor George Blake escaped from Wormwood Scrubs, in a startling and disgraceful lapse in security. He lived to his mid-90s and finished his days in Moscow.
In the present circumstances there should be a thorough inquiry, but all of us interested in the justice system know that prison overcrowding is a serious problem. The excellent men and women who work in our prisons are under tremendous stress. This is a serious incident. I hope the guy gets captured quickly and faces real justice, but can we please do something about the prison estate and the good people who man it?
Alex Chalk
I agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Every prisons Minister and Secretary of State, whether Labour or Conservative, will say that prison officers do a wonderful job, and it is a hidden service. I believe that to my bootstraps, which is why I met the Unlocked Graduates in Leeds to thank them personally for what they do, and why we hosted a reception recently at No. 10. It is an incredibly important job that is beyond most of the people in this room, if I dare be so bold. It requires huge judgment, courage, integrity and decency. I pay tribute to them all.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Along with other residents in south-west London, my constituents are concerned about this incident. I welcome the actions of the police, and I am sure the man will be swiftly detained. I visited Wandsworth Prison in June, and as I arrived, six members of staff were being taken to A&E because they had just been assaulted. The prison officers’ union has been raising staff shortages and inadequate training with me and others for a long time. I welcome the Secretary of State’s inquiries.
I welcome the fact that the points where the person absconded were staffed. However, I hope the Secretary of State will still look into the staffing shortages in Wandsworth and the inadequate training, which has been raised by prison officers, who I agree do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances in Wandsworth, a very overcrowded prison.
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for raising those points. She is right about staffing; we need to drive it up. As I indicated, we have done things that make a meaningful difference—I was down at HMP Isis speaking to a band 3 officer about precisely that—such as rolling out body-worn video across the estate. That is an incredibly important tool to dial down potentially volatile situations and, if they are not dialled down, to capture the evidence to ensure that justice is done. That is making an enormous difference to bringing down violence. It is also having an impact on recruitment and retention—the resignation rate is going down, and the numbers we are recruiting are going up. The point that she makes in principle is fair, but equally, in that spirit of fairness, it is important to note that there are some very positive trends that we will build on and develop further.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement and his update to the House this morning. He may well have seen the media speculation that Khalife was missing for around an hour before prison staff noticed. Is that correct? If it is, what reassurances can he give that procedures will be tightened up, not just in this particular prison but across the estate?
Alex Chalk
That is one of the very issues that is being looked into urgently.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his response, which we all welcome. It is obvious that he takes this issue very seriously. I understand the tremendous pressure our Prison Service is under. However, can he confirm that the decision to hold this man in a low-security prison, after previous escapes from another prison, is not to do with space or pressure, but rather based an assessment that has turned out to be severely flawed? A review of the procedure used is needed urgently. May I also ask the Minister if the findings of the inquiry that will take place can be shared with other Administrations, for instance the Northern Ireland Assembly and the policing and justice Minister?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman asks a really probing question and makes an important point, if I may say so. The decision about where he was held was based on an assessment of the circumstances relating to that individual and the alleged offending, not about whether there was space in the category A estate. There was space to put him there, if that had been the right assessment. What we have to get to the bottom of is this: was that exercise properly conducted? That is one of the reviews. To his second point, about whether the findings can be shared, my strong instinct would be that whatever can be shared, should be, so that across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland any learning can be absorbed as broadly as possible.
Prevent: Independent Review
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Prevent programme.
The terrorist threat to the UK is unrelenting and evolving, and, as I noted earlier this year in announcing our refresh of Contest, it is rising. To combat that, the tools to counter terrorism must evolve. Contest, our counter-terrorism strategy, has four pillars: prevent, pursue, protect and prepare. Prevent aims to stop people becoming involved in terrorism by tackling radicalising ideologies at their root. It is an early intervention programme that relies on frontline public services across society, including healthcare, education, local authorities, the police and civil society.
I am delivering wide-ranging reforms, following the reappraisal of its effectiveness by the independent reviewer of Prevent, Sir William Shawcross. Prevent needs to better understand the threats we face and the ideology underpinning them. Ideology is the lens through which terrorists see the world. Our agencies work closely with leading experts, practitioners and former extremists. They all say that ideology is pivotal.
Terrorism is fundamentally an attack on our ideas and freedoms, so we must attack the threat at its source and disrupt those who seed and spread extremist ideology. Non-violent extremism can certainly lead to violence, but it is a problem even where it does not. It undermines our values and divides communities by diluting our sense of shared belonging. That is why I have been so disturbed by the sorts of incidents we have seen recently in Batley, Wakefield and elsewhere. We do not have blasphemy laws in Great Britain and we must never succumb to their de facto imposition by a mob. Individuals under the Prevent duty must challenge those who enable “permissive environments” for radicalisation, where grievances, identity politics and disinformation are used to whip up fear and division.
Six months on from the publication of the independent review of Prevent, I am pleased to report significant progress to the House. We are on track to deliver our commitment to implement each of the independent review’s recommendations in full. So far, working closely with the Minister for Security, we have completed 10 out of 34 recommendations, and 68 out of the 120 tasks. I expect to have implemented at least 29 of the 34 recommendations a year after the review’s publication, and the rest shortly thereafter.
Today I am publishing the first major revision of the Prevent duty guidance since its introduction in 2015. Subject to the approval of Parliament, it will come into force on 31 December this year. The guidance is the key text underpinning the way in which Prevent is delivered by the range of partners most central to its success. The changes reflect the spirit and the detail of Sir William’s recommendations.
I accepted the review’s recommendation for thresholds to be reset to ensure proportionality across all extremist ideologies. RICU, the Research, Information and Communications Unit, which provides analytical and analysis products on behalf of the Home Office, was identified by Sir William as a concern. In the past, it has failed to draw clear distinctions between mainstream Conservative commentary and the extreme right. People such as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) and Douglas Murray express mainstream, insightful and perfectly decent political views. People may disagree with them, but in no way are they extremists, and Prevent must not risk any perception of disparaging them as such again. From now on, all RICU products which report on extremist trends, and in future themes, will clearly state the purpose of such reporting and be proportionate.
Our new Prevent duty training, available on gov.uk, will highlight the importance of ideology and enhance understanding of the drivers of Islamist and extreme right-wing terrorism. We will pilot and roll out new face-to-face training alongside the new guidance so that organisations across the sector have the appropriate skills to spot genuine radicalisation. A new security threat check will ensure that strategic decision making related to Prevent is informed by the current threat landscape and local threats, and that activity is directed accordingly.
The review recommended great care over terminology. The term “susceptibility to radicalisation” should be used where appropriate, and the word “vulnerability” only where necessary. Many people who embrace extremism are affected by a range of complicating factors in their lives, but there is almost always an element of personal decision making in the choices they make. They must not be absolved of responsibility when they choose this path.
I have strengthened the operational delivery of Prevent by switching to a regional delivery model that provides support for all local authorities in England and Wales. The 20 areas in England and Wales with the highest risk ratings will receive multi-year funding. I have also provided Home Office Prevent expertise to Scotland. It is vital that Prevent does nothing actively to undermine its mission, for instance by supporting groups that work against the freedom and values that we stand for. Due diligence checks on partners delivering Prevent in local communities have been strengthened following input from the Commission for Countering Extremism and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Prevent, and public authorities such as the police, should not fund or work with those who legitimise extremism, such as CAGE or MEND—Muslim Engagement and Development. That is completely at odds with Prevent objectives. Extremist and anti-Prevent groups have waged mendacious and malicious campaigns to try to discredit Prevent as anti-Muslim to undermine its work. Through the work of a new specialist unit, we are now working to rapidly rebut and counter inaccurate information about Prevent when it appears.
The independent review found that Prevent had not taken antisemitism seriously enough, so specialist intervention providers have now been recruited to better address the prevalence of antisemitism in those referred to Prevent. They will work directly with those susceptible to radicalisation to deconstruct their extremist mindset and tackle it head-on. This approach is complemented by new research allowing Prevent to explain the pernicious and often subtle indicators of antisemitism.
Like any public service, Prevent needs independent oversight, and I expect the new standards and compliance unit to be operational and publicised online early in 2024. It will process complaints from both the public and practitioners, and will take instruction from Ministers to conduct investigations and publish findings. The unit will be delivered by the Commission for Countering Extremism, and will be answerable to Ministers on the Prevent oversight board, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Security Minister.
Extremists of whatever disposition, be they neo-Nazis or Islamists, must know that in our fight against them, we will never be hampered by doubt or cowed by fear. Ensuring that Prevent is fit for purpose is critical to delivering that message, and to winning that fight. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I join the Government in paying tribute to the work of our security services, our counter-terrorism police, the myriad different agencies—local communities, councils and education bodies—that work on the Prevent programme, and all those who work so hard to keep us safe.
Extremists try to divide us and to undermine our democratic values and our respect for one another. Extremist ideologies are a stain on our society: they feed on fear and vulnerabilities to promote hatred and violence. We have seen appalling terror attacks, from the attack on children in Manchester and the attack in Fishmongers’ Hall to the attacks on our own Jo Cox and David Amess. A strong and determined response to extremism and terror threats and threats to our national security, wherever they come from, is immensely important to our safety.
The Contest strategy rightly includes “prevent”, “pursue”, “prepare” and “protect”, and it was right for the Home Secretary to update the House on the approach to extremism and to the Prevent programme. However, on a day when there are grave unanswered questions about how a terror suspect could possibly have escaped from prison, before trial, hidden on the bottom of a food van, I am astonished that she said nothing about Prevent and prisons. We have unanswered questions about how on earth the escape could have happened, and also about staffing levels. There have been repeated warnings of 30% staff absences and shifts not being covered. Those staffing issues are a matter for Prevent as well. The independent review highlighted an issue about which countless other reports have warned: the lack of sufficient action on deradicalisation and Prevent in our prisons. Prisoners are actually leaving prison more radicalised than they were when they went in. Referring to extremism-related training for staff, Sir William said:
“it became clear during the review that this training was frequently cancelled due to staff and resource shortages…I was further told that there have been delays to staff beginning Prevent training and to extremist prisoners beginning rehabilitative programmes. These delays are attributed to staffing and resourcing issues”.
The Government have been warned repeatedly about this, and I am concerned about the complete lack of reference to it in the Home Secretary’s statement. Will she please tell us what action is being taken, and also what action is being taken for those due to be released from prison—those who are due to be deliberately released, that is, as opposed to those who escape? Contest has warned that
“four of the nine declared terrorist attacks since 2018 were perpetrated by serving or recently released prisoners.”
The joint inspectorate warned just a few months ago that there were not enough senior officials in place to oversee the 120 prisoners with terror-related convictions who are due to be released by next March. What deradicalisation and Prevent work have those 120 prisoners undergone in prison, and what provisions are in place in the community to ensure that there is no risk to the public? We cannot afford any suggestion of failure by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to take national security treats in prison seriously.
Today’s report from the borders inspectorate is highly critical of Border Force’s failures on insider threats, saying that organisational structures for addressing
“insider threat were found to be confused, with complex inter-relationships and unclear lines of accountability”.
What action is the Home Secretary taking to deal with insider threats?
There is also no mention of any action on online radicalisation or the use of artificial intelligence. Online radicalisation was raised by the independent review, and we know that generative AI raises further challenges and questions. We have identified potentially serious legal loopholes in our ability to take action against those who choose to use generative AI to try to radicalise people. What action is being taken on that? We have asked the Home Secretary about this before. Will she agree to Labour’s proposal to tighten the law?
The majority of the extremist threats our security agencies deal with are Islamist extremism, followed by far-right extremism. Other warped ideologies have also driven violent threats, but the main focus must continue to be on Islamist extremist threats. I welcome the emphasis on antisemitism, but the agencies, the police and the Prevent programme need to follow the threats of violence and hateful extremism wherever the evidence goes, rather than having to follow any political hierarchies that have been set.
Neil Basu, the former counter-terror chief, has said that we also need to make sure there is earlier intervention and prevention. He said:
“If we set the bar for Prevent so high that it can deal only with those who are already radicalised, we will have more terrorists, not fewer.”
Finally, what action is being taken in response to the former countering extremism commissioner’s report on hateful extremism, published some years ago? Are the Government ever going to respond to that or update the countering extremism strategy, which is now eight years out of date? We need that action. Prevent is not a whole countering extremism strategy. We need broader action if we are to keep our democratic values safe.
Suella Braverman
I thank the right hon. Lady for her response. She raised several points to which I will respond.
First, I pay tribute to all the professionals and experts in our agencies who work day and night to keep the British people safe from the evolving, changing and, indeed, increasing risk we carry when it comes to terrorism. They work in many ways of which we will not be aware, but they make huge sacrifices. I am very proud of the progress that they and this Government have made in recent years. That includes the opening of a new counter-terrorism operations centre that is now up and running and delivering state-of-the-art counter-terrorism work between all the agencies—be they the police or others—working in one place in a co-ordinated and streamlined way. I was pleased to visit CTOC recently. Our Contest strategy was relaunched earlier this year and, since 2018, 39 attacks have been disrupted by the brave men and women working in law enforcement and other agencies. That huge amount of work is going incredibly well.
Of course, the threat remains substantial, which means an attack is likely. There is no room for complacency on this issue, which is why I am wholly committed to focusing on the effective delivery of Sir William Shawcross’s recommendations. That is why I have come to update the House today.
The right hon. Lady mentioned prisons and, of course, William Shawcross referred to the threat of terrorism, extremism and radicalisation within the prison estate. In fact, recommendation 27 makes it clear that better and more training is required for prison officers, which is why I am very pleased that there has been significant progress on the roll-out of the new terrorism risks behaviour profile. This new prison-based product is led by the Ministry of Justice, building on the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall and reiterated and built on by Sir William. That roll-out will be completed by the end of the year. The value of this new tool is that prison officers will be better trained. They will have more skills and more tools at their disposal to better identify terrorism and the risk that it poses within the prison estate. That is a direct response to recommendations and concerns that have been raised.
I refer the right hon. Lady to the previous statement made by the Lord Chancellor on the broader issues. I am receiving regular briefings on the circumstances leading to the escape of Daniel Khalife yesterday and on the wide-ranging operation involving the police, Border Force and the agencies to track him down.
The right hon. Lady also mentioned resources. Let me be clear that funding for counter-terrorism is as high as it has ever been, and Prevent funding has not been cut. However, we are redirecting resources to better reflect the evolving threat picture, so that our resources are directed at the priorities informed by the intelligence picture. For example, I am very pleased that all local authorities now have a dedicated Home Office point of expertise and contact. That has been rolled out throughout England and Wales. It will properly equip those in the local authority sector to have proper training and a connection, a dialogue and a meaningful relationship with the Home Office so that they can be better tooled up to respond to radicalisation and the risks relating to Prevent in the community.
The right hon. Lady also said there should not be a hierarchy of threats. Of course, there is no such hierarchy. Prevent is ideologically agnostic, but we must always be clear about the facts. When I last updated the House, for example, 80% of live investigations by the counter-terrorism police network were Islamist in nature, and MI5 is clear that Islamist terrorism remains our predominant threat, accounting for 75% of its case load, yet only 16% of Prevent referrals in 2021 were Islamist. That is a fundamental problem that Sir William identified and that I am addressing right now through these robust and wide-ranging reforms.
Prevent is a security service, not a social service. The role of ideology in terrorism has too often been minimised, with violence attributed to vulnerabilities such as mental health or poverty and to the absence of protective factors, rather than focusing on individual responsibility and personal agency in the choices that these people are making.
I am implementing all the review’s recommendations, and I have committed to reporting back to the House on progress. I am clear that Prevent must focus solely on security, not on political correctness or appeasing campaign groups. Its first objective must be to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism. We will not be cowed by fear, and we will not be hampered by doubt. I am very grateful to the House for hearing this update.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
It is welcome that the Home Secretary has come to the House today to update us on the report. I am sure the whole House and the country will be grateful that all the review’s recommendations have been accepted. She is absolutely right to say that it is about individuals making individual choices and that there can be no excuses relating to their background or the indoctrination that has taken place. This is about freedom of speech, too. People should not be frightened that Prevent intrudes on freedom of speech. It is about keeping this country safe from terrorism.
Suella Braverman
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that this is about national security and public safety. It is not about appeasing campaign groups or the fear of offending particular minority groups. It is not about putting community cohesion ahead of the interest of national security. I am absolutely clear that our Prevent professionals in all the relevant agencies must work without fear or favour and in the interest of national security first and foremost.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Shawcross review has found that the Prevent strategy has failed and lost its way. The very system that aimed to identify would-be terrorists has allegedly funded a group whose head was sympathetic to the Taliban. That failure is why the Home Secretary is coming to the House today to make a statement. I am sure she will agree that public confidence in the Prevent strategy has been shaken to its foundations. We know that those previously referred to Prevent went on to commit terrorist acts and that the terrorist threat across the UK remains substantial, which means that an attack is likely. What long-term work is being done to monitor those who leave prison after serving sentences to ensure that they do not remain a threat to our communities and national security?
Islamist terrorism is the primary terrorist threat, but it is not the only one. The fact that the Wagner group is to be declared a terrorist organisation has to be welcomed, but there must be ongoing concern and vigilance in respect of extreme and far right incel movements. Questions about how to tackle online radicalisation remain. Will the Home Secretary assure us that there will be full co-operation with the devolved nations as we seek to tackle the scourge of terrorism? What guarantees will she provide that Prevent will have the necessary budget and resources to fulfil its central aim and mission of preventing terrorism across the UK?
Finally, the Home Secretary talked about better training for prison officers, but staffing crises in our prisons are rife. Training is all well and good, but it is important that the prison estate has the proper manpower levels to play its part in deradicalising and rehabilitating those who have been convicted of terrorist offences, so that when they are released they can go back to their communities without causing alarm. What action is she taking to address the staffing crisis in our prisons, as part of this strategy?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Lady talked about historical Home Office funding of groups linked with extremism, an issue identified by Sir William in his landmark report. I was appalled when I read that Prevent had historically funded groups that have legitimised extremism or has worked with groups whose values totally contradict our own. That is not a proper use of public money, it undermines Prevent’s objectives and it is potentially a threat to national security. I will ensure that that never happens again. As a result of that issue identified in the report, we are running a full-scale audit of all counter-extremism funding arrangements and we will immediately terminate all agreements that fall below our standards. We are working closely with the Commission for Countering Extremism to ensure that we strengthen our oversight and vetting procedures to ensure that taxpayers’ money always goes to the right groups.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and her strong leadership on this issue. The additional measures taken by the Ministry of Justice earlier this year to crack down on the activities of terrorist prisoners were very welcome. Is she able to provide an update on any assessments the Home Office, in conjunction with the MOJ, has completed on the success of those measures so far?
Suella Braverman
The Prevent duty applies to those working in the prison estate. Sir William identified a particular concern relating to the threat of radicalism and terrorism occurring and evolving within the prison estate, which is why he made a recommendation. I am pleased that we have made significant progress on rolling out the terrorism risks behaviour profile, which will now enable prison officers to have better training so that they can better spot, and are more confident and knowledgeable about, the signs of radicalisation, extremism and terrorism within the prison estate and are thereafter empowered to take steps to mitigate and eliminate that risk.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In ensuring that Prevent is fit for purpose, the Home Affairs Committee looked at the Prevent review and we were concerned about the under-representation of the Islamist threat in Prevent referrals when compared with right-wing extremism referrals. Some 22% of the 4,915 referrals related to Islamist radicalisation and 25% related to right-wing extremism. However, 75% of those who ended up on remand for terrorist offences were categorised as Islamist and 22% were categorised as extreme right-wing. When the Security Minister appeared before our Committee, he said that the Government needed to look at the reasons for that, and that they were going to look at the misallocation and seek to make sure there was better representation of the actual threat. Will the Home Secretary therefore set out what work has been done to ensure that we have that proper representation in those initial Prevent referrals?
Suella Braverman
We saw exactly that incongruity and disparity between the intelligence picture and the security threat picture, and what was happening on the ground among the Prevent community in the referrals that they were making. That is a problem, which is why today marks an important step forward in rectifying that erroneous approach. The new statutory guidance will focus increasingly on ideological causes of terrorism, and there will be much more stringency and robustness in looking more rigorously at the ideology behind extremism. Importantly, we are also adopting Sir William’s recommendation of including the security threat check, which consists of specialist questions that are directly informed by the intelligence and Home Office analysis of the security and counter-terrorism picture. That will form a series of principles that will help to ensure that Prevent referrals on the ground properly reflect the threat picture.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Coming from Greater Manchester, I know tragically what the end result of Islamist indoctrination can be for a community, so I welcome very much the re-emphasis on tackling Islamist indoctrination. In the Home Secretary’s reset of the Prevent system, will she explain to the House how she is going to take local communities with her? She knows that one criticism of the Prevent system as it stands is that it also stigmatises whole communities, not just those who are extremists. What confidence is she going to give to diverse communities across the UK?
Suella Braverman
It is not right to say that Prevent is anti-Muslim. Prevent is about ensuring that Islamism, extremism, radicalisation and violent ideology about hatred, evil and values totally at odds with ours are stamped out. The vast majority of British Muslims make a valuable contribution to the UK, but we must be courageous in calling out permissive environments and tolerance for extremism among some parts of our community. That requires a fearless approach, one that is not cowed by political correctness or fear of upsetting particular groups in the name of community cohesion. If we want to save lives, we need to take a united approach, but a robust and fearless one to calling out Islamism when we see it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the strength of character and delivery of purpose as well. She referred to discussions about possible support for Scotland. She is right to be strong on radicalisation. Steps have been taken to combat that in Northern Ireland, where the rewriting of history is leading to the glorifying of terrorism for a new generation—that must be combatted. Will she confirm the effectiveness of Prevent in all areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Suella Braverman
As I mentioned when we refreshed our Contest strategy, we are seeing a concerning level of terrorism related to Northern Ireland. That is a very sorry reflection of unacceptable behaviour, which must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Our agencies work UK-wide and we are always working closely with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other authorities at the local level, to ensure that all leads are followed in the fullest possible way and measures are put in place to mitigate risks as they emerge. However, as we saw earlier this year, that threat is a concern and we must remain vigilant to it.
EU Programmes
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
This is a momentous day for British science and technology as we have negotiated a great landmark deal, designed in the UK’s best interest. A hard-fought-for deal that will allow the UK’s world-leading scientists, researchers and businesses to participate with total confidence in both Horizon Europe and Copernicus, it gives the best and brightest of the UK’s scientific community access to the world’s largest research collaboration programme.
It means British scientists and businesses can co-operate with researchers not just in the EU, but in Norway, New Zealand and Israel, expanding the reach and impact of British science and technology to every corner of the globe. With Korea and Canada looking to join these programmes in the future, we are opening the doors to further pioneering, international collaboration with a growing group of countries.
We were always clear that we wanted to associate with Horizon and that is why we had it in the trade and co-operation agreement. However, as hon. Members know only too well, we were not able to commence those negotiations over the last two years because the European Union had linked it to the Northern Ireland protocol. However, our Prime Minister’s Windsor framework broke the deadlock and allowed us to commence negotiations.
We said all along that we would accept only a good deal, which is why we did not take the first deal on the table. Instead, we pursued a bespoke agreement that delivers for British taxpayers, researchers and businesses. We will not pay for a second of the time in which we were not members of the programme, and our deal protects and benefits hardworking taxpayers through a new clawback mechanism.
What is more, our scientists and researchers can benefit from Horizon today, meaning they can immediately bid into the programme, with certainty over funding. All calls in the 2024 work programme, including those that open for bids this year, will be funded through our association to Horizon, while the few remaining 2023 work programme calls will be funded by the UK guarantee.
But this is not just about Horizon. We needed a bespoke deal that gave us access only to EU programmes that would benefit the UK, not to those that would not. Listening to voices from our world-leading fusion sector, we will not be joining Euratom. Instead, we are investing an additional £650 million straight into our cutting-edge fusion sector, assisting our journey to becoming a science and technology superpower by 2030.
When I first started in this role, I made it my No.1 priority to listen to the voices and views of the scientific and tech communities. What I heard loud and clear was how essential associating to Horizon Europe was for the sector, and I am delighted that this Government have now delivered on that. The deal we have negotiated has been warmly welcomed by the whole of the scientific community. It gives it the certainty it needs to continue delivering long-term research and innovation, and it will enable it to change people’s lives and have a truly global outlook. Members do not need to take my word for it; today’s announcement has been supported by Universities UK, the Russell Group, all four of our prestigious national academies, leading tech businesses, including Airbus and Rolls Royce, and countless more.
The deal is not just about funding and support for universities, businesses and scientists. It is a deal that has a real-world impact for people and communities throughout the UK. This deal is set to create and support thousands of new jobs as part of a new generation of research talent who are attracted to the UK and work across the globe. The deal we have negotiated will allow the UK to continue to play a leading role on the international stage in solving the biggest challenges that we face, from climate change and the race to net zero to cures for cancer, dementia and other life-threatening diseases.
Alongside this deal, the Government are proudly backing our science and tech communities. We have committed to invest £20 billion in research and development by the next financial year. That means more record funding on wider priorities, from harnessing the power of AI to improving our public services to tapping the potential of quantum computing. We will continue to strengthen our collaboration with countries beyond Europe, building on the success of the international science partnership fund we launched earlier this year, to deliver our truly global science approach with global benefits.
Today we take another giant leap forward in our mission to make Britain a science and tech superpower. I am confident that scientists and businesses are ready to seize the moment. The horizon could not really be brighter for British science and technology. I commend the statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
In a past life, I was a university lecturer. I have to say that, if one of my students had turned up to hand in an assessment two years late, I would not have been terribly amused. I do not think anyone could be very amused by the two wasted years here. On science policy in this country, we have a classic case of lions being led by donkeys.
Britain is blessed with many of the world’s greatest innovators: the developers of the covid vaccine and the internet, cancer specialists and green energy pioneers. We are home to those who are at the vanguard of research, yet they have been failed by this Conservative Government time and again. They have left our researchers locked out of the world’s leading scientific collaboration project, worth over £80 billion, for the past two years. It has been like keeping Lionel Messi or England’s Lucy Bronze out of the World cup.
We have already seen reports of cancer research specialists leaving the UK to pick up Horizon projects elsewhere, while we have lost two years of funding rounds. That vital ground has been lost and cannot be revived, despite a promise in the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto. That is what happens when bluster and division are put above delivering for people.
The Secretary of State spoke about the link with the Windsor framework. It was this Conservative Government who negotiated the Northern Ireland protocol in the first place and it is little wonder this Government have presided over such anaemic economic growth. So although the long-delayed confirmation of association to Horizon and Copernicus will be a relief, it cannot undo the damage that has already been caused and leaves serious questions for the Government to answer.
In her statement, the Secretary of State spoke about some of the costs, but can she set out the precise quantum of the financial contribution to Horizon and the other schemes in the years ahead? Has any financial disadvantage been accrued through missing out on the first years of the scheme? Could she confirm how the UK’s position as an associate member of Horizon impacts our ability to strategically shape the future of the Horizon programme? How do we ensure terms that are advantageous for our research communities?
I heard the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), chuntering earlier. He will probably recall his contribution to this debate:
“Of the three—Euratom, Copernicus and Horizon—Euratom is probably the hardest of all to reproduce…I still think of them very much as a bundle. We would like to remain in all three, but, if I had to pick one, Euratom is the one”.
Those were his words, but the agreement does not include association to Euratom. Can the Secretary of State outline what risks that might impose for international collaboration and energy security?
In short, today’s announcement is long overdue. It leaves vital questions outstanding. What I have no doubt about is that our brilliant scientific community can rise to the challenges and make the best of the hand that they have been dealt. I have no doubt either, I am afraid, that we cannot go on being held back by this chaotic Conservative Government who are a drag anchor on so much that makes Britain great.
Michelle Donelan
I welcome the right hon. Member to his position. I am delighted that the Opposition have finally got round to appointing a ministerial team to shadow the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—it took them six months, but they did get there in the end.
I am also delighted that the right hon. Member has acknowledged the significance of this Government deal, but to address his point about the delay, he knows only too well that it was the European Union that linked Horizon association directly with the Northern Ireland protocol and it is this Government and this Prime Minister who managed to unlock that with the Windsor framework. It is also this Government who bridged that gap with the Horizon guarantee, spending more than £1 billion.
As soon as the framework was agreed, I was the first to hop on the train to Brussels to see the commissioner to ensure that we could kickstart that negotiation. At the time, I was eight and a half months pregnant, but I thought that that was vital to our sector and I am glad that we are able to deliver today. One thing I will not do is apologise for the Government wanting to get a good deal. Let us remember it was the Opposition who called for us to accept the deal on the table back in March. If we had done that, we would not have this good deal for our taxpayers, our businesses, our scientists and our researchers. I have already—it was in the statement— clarified the point that we will not pay for one moment that we were not associated with Horizon, but I reiterate that point.
To answer some of the right hon. Member’s other questions, the cost will be £2 billion a year and, as I have said, we are injecting £650 million directly into our fusion sector. On Euratom, the Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation agrees with me that it is the right strategy to proceed with Horizon and Copernicus, but not with Euratom. It is not just we who believe that. The Fusion Industry Association has welcomed the UK Government’s ambitious package of £650 million. Ian Chapman has said that he welcomes the clarity over our future relationship. In fact the association made representations directly to us in order to ensure that we put the money directly into our sector.
This is a great deal for Britain, for the taxpayer, for businesses, for scientists and for researchers. We believe that our country has the potential to be a science and tech superpower. It is a shame that the Opposition do not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Science does not recognise borders, and everyone wins when the best UK scientists can work with the best in the EU and around the world, so this is a huge and positive announcement and has been greeted with delight and relief not just by the science community in the UK, but across Europe and beyond.
My Select Committee, the members of which are in the Chamber, will examine the deal in detail, but may I congratulate the Secretary of State, her Minister and the whole of the Government on what seems to be a shrewd agreement that, for example, allows us to win grants even beyond our own financial contribution? Will she confirm that Horizon funding is available not just to academic institutions, but for innovation by British industry? Has she consulted formally the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which runs our fusion programme, about not participating in Euratom and, if so, what is its view? Does she agree that, with the reputation of British science as high as it is, with the science budget doubling as it has over the past 10 years to £20 billion a year by next year, and with now the opportunities of rejoining Horizon opening up, this is a golden opportunity for the UK to advance our status as a science superpower?
Michelle Donelan
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I am delighted that he has welcomed this announcement today. In relation to his comments on Euratom, we did consult widely the sector and the UK AEA, which has welcomed this publicly, along with many stakeholders, including the business community, which will also benefit from this announcement today.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The SNP welcomes this move, which will provide much-needed certainty and kickstart new research opportunities for key strength areas of the Scottish economy, including life sciences. The Prime Minister himself has said that rejoining this EU scheme is
“critical to a brighter economic future”.
But the SNP believes that rejoining the EU as a full member state is much more critical than that. Unfortunately, I know that this Government, and probably the incoming Labour Government, strongly disagree with that, to the detriment of Scotland.
Securing Horizon association is a matter of pressing importance. We must not forget that universities and members of the research community in Scotland have missed out on their share of the all-important funding provided by the €95.5 billion European research and innovation programme since the UK Government’s decision to pursue a hard Brexit.
We are disappointed that Euratom is not going to be pursued and is being taken separately. Although we welcome the funding, I think we all agree that it is much better that we work in conjunction with our European neighbours. Scotland has also been locked out of Copernicus, so what is the status of re-entering that and, indeed, the Erasmus+ scheme?
Michelle Donelan
We will not be rejoining the EU under this Government because we believe in democracy. On Euratom, the best people to listen to are the sector themselves, who told us directly and clearly that they would be better off with the money going straight to them and that is what we have done. We have listened to the sectors involved and we have delivered. This is a fantastic deal that creates many opportunities for businesses, scientists and researchers. It is not to be confused with Erasmus, which the hon. Member raised. That is a separate scheme. In fact, it was this Government, and I personally when I worked in the Department for Education, who established the Turing scheme, which is better than Erasmus because it is global in nature and supports those from different backgrounds.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Perhaps I could declare an interest: in my previous job, I was one of the six European Parliament rapporteurs involved in setting up the initial Horizon 2020 project and the only one from the United Kingdom. What I learnt during the five years that I worked on that project was that this is not just for Nobel prize winners or mega companies; it is also for researchers at the start of their careers, for innovators and for less well-known companies such as Teledyne e2v in Chelmsford, which provides our eyes and ears to world space programmes.
What I heard time and again was that, if we create an opportunity for scientists plus researchers and combine that with the ability to work across borders and across disciplines, we will have a formula that will often result in better innovation and more effective solutions to some of the world’s trickiest problems. May I thank the Prime Minister, his ministerial team and all those on the EU side—for there were many—who continued to press to have British science in these programmes? It is a great deal for Britain, for all of us on the continent of Europe and for all of us who live in this world.
Michelle Donelan
My right hon. Friend speaks a lot of sense. I thank her for her thanks, and for those to the Prime Minister and the negotiating team, who have done us proud in bringing home a deal that will truly deliver. I know that this is something that she has worked on considerably in her time and is passionate about.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very relieved by today’s statement, hopefully just in the nick of time to avoid really serious damage to UK science. I welcome it, and particularly applaud the contribution made by the Minister for Science, which I know has been very important to achieving this outcome. We are gaining associate membership of Horizon. To what extent does that give us a seat at the table to influence the future shape of the programme?
Michelle Donelan
We will be able to lead projects from 2024. Most of the projects open at the moment— 80% to 90%—are for 2024, and we have the opportunity to lead them, so we can be at the forefront of this agenda.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. It will be warmly welcomed by the scientific community across the United Kingdom. It might even be described as one small step for her but a giant leap for British science. Will she comment particularly on Arctic science, as 78 universities or other institutions are looking into matters in the Arctic at this moment? They will warmly welcome the rejoining of Horizon, but I want to hear from her a particular commitment by the British Government to further support British science in the Arctic. It is such an important area with regard to climate change and other things, and I want to hear that she and her hon. Friend, the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, who does great work on these matters, is fully committed to supporting British science in the Arctic.
Michelle Donelan
I know that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour does a great deal of work on this as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, with a keen interest in this area. We have a fantastic track record when it comes to Arctic science, being fourth in the world, and we want to climb up that league table. Membership of Horizon Europe will certainly help us to achieve that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The announcement that the UK will rejoin Horizon is very welcome, and I am very pleased about it, but there is so much more to be done to restore academic co-operation with the EU, especially for students. The Turing scheme is currently on a very sad par with the Erasmus programme. The University of Bath, as the right hon. Member will know, is a science university. As University of Bath students point out, the Turing scheme requires universities to forecast where students will go before their bid for funding, a year in advance. It restricts the freedom of students and creates a major challenge for universities. Will she work with the students’ union at the University of Bath to ensure that Turing will work as smoothly as Erasmus?
Michelle Donelan
I am more than happy to work with the Department for Education and co-ordinate a conversation with the University of Bath, but it is important to note that the Turing scheme is different from Erasmus; it is better. It is global in nature. It is also more inclusive. The statistics on the Erasmus scheme show that it particularly helped children of families from middle-class backgrounds, whereas the Turing scheme is much more accessible.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and her Science Minister on a fantastic deal, which the scaremongers said could never happen. They said that we had to take what we were offered. We did not, and we have an excellent deal. Later today, I hope that the Science Minister will respond to a debate that I will lead on fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, a terrible genetic condition where muscle turns to bone, restricting the life chances of so many people, including some of my constituents who are here. There was a Horizon project looking into this, but it was suspended because of covid. Will we be allowed to go back into that, even though we have had this period of time out, or is that something that the Science Minister would like to write to me about?
Michelle Donelan
The Science Minister has agreed to meet with our right hon. Friend and discuss this at great length.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his timely and positive action following my question to him yesterday. I welcome the news, which comes as a huge relief to the research community after so much prolonged uncertainty. Can the Secretary of State assure the chief executive of Cancer Research UK, who welcomes the Government’s decision and has expressed the hope that this deal will pave the way for continued UK participation in future European research programmes?
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Member’s question to the Prime Minister was indeed timely. I can give her that assurance. One of the key missions of Horizon Europe focuses on tackling and addressing cancer, and that will continue to be key.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today’s announcement that the UK will be rejoining Horizon. Scientific research opportunities are vital to the development of our future industries. However, young people in rural parts of the country, such as North Devon, often do not see the possibilities of a career in science. Will she work with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the opportunities from today’s announcement extend right into our remote rural communities?
Michelle Donelan
It is vital that the opportunities that young people have are not capped by the location where they live or are born, and that is certainly a key part of our levelling-up agenda. When it comes to rural communities, agri-tech is absolutely at the heart of the areas that we are focusing on. Horizon Europe will open up those potential collaborations across the globe.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a relief that the EU has relaxed its rather self-defeating ban on the participation of British scientists and researchers in projects with their European peers. I congratulate the Government on holding fast to achieve a deal that was in the best interests of British taxpayers. I will probe the Secretary of State on three specific points. She talked about the opportunity for the UK to lead projects, but she did not say that the UK will have the right to determine the focus of projects in the future. I am interested in that specific point.
Secondly, it is always important to have all the brains in the building working on projects. Will the UK have the opportunity post 2027 to see the Horizon programme expand beyond its existing members? Thirdly, will she reassure the House that the Government’s commitment, which they have shown year on year, to increase research and development spending will continue to focus on the competitive interests of the UK first and foremost?
Michelle Donelan
We are confident that we will be able to use the Horizon programme to collaborate on areas of shared interest, including on strategically sensitive technologies, such as chips and semiconductors. Given the deal that we have agreed, we will be able to play a leading role within the Horizon agenda, and help to guide it through and expand it. Future association would, of course, be for future Governments to determine, but I am confident that our scientific community will seize this opportunity, utilise it, and prove how valuable membership of Horizon Europe is. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his interest in these topics.
Points of Order
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A few moments ago the Secretary of State inadvertently promoted me to the position of Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee —our right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) would have been surprised and disappointed to hear that. I am in fact Chair of the Environmental Audit Sub-Committee on Polar Research, which is looking into the Arctic. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might like to correct the record.
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that it is only a matter of time, but I correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for between them correcting the record.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct the record following my question to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs this morning. Since raising the matter, I have received an update from my local council that Afghan families expected this week are no longer coming from hotels to North Devon. This is an ongoing process, but we hope to welcome further refugees to North Devon in the near future.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for notifying me of it. We have had a lot of correcting of the record in these points of order, but her speed in doing so has been exemplary.
Backbench Business
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hormone Pregnancy Tests
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that children were born with serious deformities due to the hormone pregnancy test drug Primodos, which was taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975; further notes that official warnings were not issued about Primodos until eight years after the first reports indicated possible dangers; observes that the report by the Commission on Human Medicines’ Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests in 2017 was inconsistent with other academic reports; notes that the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, First do no harm, found that Primodos caused avoidable harm; further notes that the Government has refused to acknowledge the recommendations by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review relating to Primodos families; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations in the Independent Medicines and Medica al Devices Safety Review and to set up a redress fund for families affected by Primodos.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. This is now the fifth time we have had a debate trying to persuade the Government to grant justice to families affected by Primodos. I cannot even begin to count the number of times in the last 12 years that this issue has been raised on the Floor of this House during Prime Minister’s questions, Health questions, business questions and even Treasury questions. Time and again, this Government have insisted that there is no credible evidence to support an association between Primodos and deformities. Indeed, they have gone to great lengths to try to prove that there is no association at all.
I remind this House that Primodos was a tablet given to patients by their general practitioner as a pregnancy test. It was 40 times—I repeat, 40 times—the strength of an oral contraceptive today. It does not take a scientist to imagine what a dosage of that strength would do to a foetus. Babies were born with severe deformities, babies who are now adults in their 40s and 50s and have lived their whole lives with these disabilities.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
May I take the hon. Lady back a few moments to the tablets that were given by the patient’s GP in a national health surgery, paid for by the national health, and the doctor was paid by the national health? It was not private clinics, but the national health giving this drug.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important to stress that it was the state, the NHS, involved in this.
In July 2015, I stood in this House and urged the Government to disclose all the evidence they had and to set up an independent inquiry. The then Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), heard those concerns and agreed to an independent review, which would be led by an expert working group.
However, first, the expert working group was not independent. In fact, many of the experts were found to have conflicts of interest with the industry. Secondly, the review of the evidence conveniently ignored several important studies and then later said, “Oh, well, there was insufficient evidence.” Thirdly, the terms of reference of the review had said that it would try to find a possible link. Yet the reports’ conclusion said it was unable to find a “causal link”. How exactly does the Government intend to find a causal link, short of testing the drug on pregnant women?
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
On that point about evidence, so many medical records were destroyed. How is it possible to have an absolute evidential base for the reports, when the evidence seems to have been destroyed?
Yasmin Qureshi
That is absolutely right; I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in the Chamber. I know that, as Prime Minister at the time, she read this report. I note that in a recent Sky News interview she said
“I felt that it wasn’t the slam dunk answer that people said it was.”
I am truly grateful to her for commissioning Baroness Cumberlege to carry out a review that was both independent and credible.
Knowing what we now know, that the expert working group report was a whitewash, riddled with factual inaccuracies and conflicts of interest; knowing that studies from Oxford University have proven that the evidence in this report was deliberately manipulated to reach its conclusion; knowing that the Prime Minister of the day knew something was not right and then commissioned another review—how can it be right that any Government can continue to use this report to hide their sins?
Only a few weeks ago, lawyers used the report in court to defend their preposterous claims, and Ministers have used it as a basis to refuse and deny families redress. It is outrageous. I ask the Minister today: will she take a stand and do the right thing? Will she be courageous and read beyond the lines of the ministerial briefing she has been given? Only then will she agree with me that the expert working group report is not worth the paper it is written on.
The report stands in the way of justice for families affected by Primodos. I urge the Minister to work with us to set up an independent review of the scientific evidence, because I can assure her that only a truly independent review will find that there is an association between Primodos and malformation.
The scientific evidence is vast. Over several decades, numerous studies and animal experiments have found that the use of such tests can cause potential birth defects. In 2018, a team of academics at Oxford University conducted a systematic review of all previous human studies. They pooled together the data and found a “clear association” with several forms of malformation. At Aberdeen University, Professor Neil Vargesson has been working on this issue for years. He published research on zebrafish, which are genetically like humans, and found that the drug caused deformities in embryos. More recently, he has been working with human tissues and has again found the same association. There is another groundbreaking study take place in Sweden, which will be published soon. Again, that will continue to show how much evidence there is regarding this particular medication.
I have no doubt that later in the debate the Minister will stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the House that there is nothing she can do for the Primodos families because there is no proven association, because she has been convinced by the civil servants, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and others. Would she like me to send her some of these studies—or perhaps I can hand them to her today? Is she willing to confront the truth, or is she going to be like her predecessors, burying her head in the sand? As long as she takes that position, she is standing in the way of truth and justice.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that since the Cumberlege report there has not been progress on the vast majority of recommendations, and that for Primodos families time is running out? This issue needs to be addressed, and soon.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my hon. Friend for that; I will come on to the recommendations of the Cumberlege review.
The Minister will know that in May this year, families took the issue to the High Court. It was a David and Goliath moment. Government and Bayer lawyers used the expert working group report to argue that there was no basis for a case. The families did not have sufficient legal representation, as the firm representing them on a pro bono basis pulled out without any real explanation. It was not a fair hearing and was never going to achieve a fair outcome.
The action to strike out thus succeeded. Had that not happened, the families would have been given their day in court—an opportunity to present new scientific evidence, to argue about the misconceptions of not using epidemiological evidence to prove causation and to scrutinise the heavily flawed expert working group.
When the Cumberlege review came out, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), went on the television and apologised, but nothing has happened since then. For the first time, the Cumberlege review, known as the “Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review” or IMMDS, looked at the historical evidence and the Government documents, which showed a cover-up, and concluded that Primodos had caused “avoidable harm” and it was preventable.
The UK regulator first received a warning about the drug in 1958. A definitive study was published in 1967, which linked birth defects to the synthetic hormones in Primodos. Baroness Cumberlege concluded that Primodos should have been removed from the market in 1967. The UK regulator failed in its duty of care to women: Primodos was eventually withdrawn in 1978, 20 years after the first warning.
Let me be clear by saying it one more time: an independent review found that Primodos caused preventable and avoidable harm—the Government cannot argue their way out of that—and recommended that the Primodos families should have redress. If the Minister wants to waste time by arguing that the Cumberlege review was not a scientific one, then we can have an independent review of all the scientific evidence, but let us not waste time; let us get on with it.
The families have already been through so much in their lives. Many of them have died, others are still very unwell. Why do the Government still insist on putting them through so much emotional and mental anguish? I ask the Minister to look at the Public Gallery, where some of those families sit, having travelled from across the country. Their campaign has been led by the amazing Marie Lyon, and they have been on a long and challenging journey, spanning almost five decades, to achieve justice. Their stories are at the heart of that justice. Those in the Gallery are just some of the families, but there are many hundreds more.
Justice delayed is justice denied. The legal system has failed those families, and so far the Government have failed them as well. I ask the Government to include Primodos families in the redress scheme being delivered to the victims of mesh and valproate as a result of the recommendation in the IMMDS/Cumberlege review. This was once referred to as the worst medical fraud of the 20th century, and I believe that to be true. The families are entitled to seek reparation and redress, as the Cumberlege review made clear. The Minister has an opportunity. She has it in her power to dispense justice and grant the affected families the redress that they rightly deserve. The ball is in her court.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. This debate is well subscribed, so my advice to colleagues is to keep speeches to around seven minutes so that we can get the next debate in as well.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the debate, and most of all I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing it. She has been an intrepid campaigner on this issue over many years, as have other Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who has another important debate later this afternoon on fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive. I am afraid I will not be able to attend, but I recognise the significance of that issue.
I will focus on three issues in the time available to me. I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Bolton South East: it is a pity that we have to be here yet again, making these arguments to Government. Up until recently, the Government have been able to say in debates that they could not do or say anything because a legal case was going through the courts. Well, that case is no longer in the courts, as a result of the decision taken by Lady Justice Yip, so the Government’s position today should be rather different. We will wait and see in the Minister’s response.
The other thing that the Government have done is hide behind the expert working group report, which the hon. Lady referred to. Many issues have been related to the expert working group report, which of course found in its overall conclusion that
“the available scientific evidence, taking all aspects into consideration, does not support a causal association between the use of HPTs, such as Primodos, during early pregnancy and adverse outcomes, either with regard to miscarriage, stillbirth or congenital anomalies”
Given that conclusion, it might seem rather strange to the Minister and the House that it was that very report that led to my setting up the Cumberlege review. The reason I did so was that earlier in the report it says:
“The totality of the available evidence from pharmacology, non-clinical, epidemiological and adverse event reporting data was very limited and did not, on balance, support a causal association between the use of HPTs, such as Primodos, by the mother during early pregnancy and congenital anomalies in the child.”
To me, “on balance” means that there was an argument against a causal link and, on the other side, an argument for a causal link, so the strength of the absolute decision that the expert working group came out with was, I think, a misrepresentation of what they had put earlier in the report. It was that sense of a balanced argument that led me to call for the Cumberlege review.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Lady for the work that she did as Prime Minister to set up the Cumberlege review. May I take her back to her first point? She said rightly that the Government have been refusing to take forward the recommendations of the review because of the legal case, and that that case has now come to an end. Is she aware that the defendants in that case, including the Government, have sent letters to some of the applicants saying that they must sign away their right to take forward any further legal cases or be faced with, and pressured by, millions of pounds in legal costs? Does she agree that for the Government solicitor to be part of that process, and threatening those families, is quite atrocious?
Mrs May
I was not aware of that. I am very concerned by the situation that the right hon. Gentleman sets out, and I hope that the Government will urgently consider the position that their solicitors have been taking on that issue.
The second issue I will raise is the very important matter of redress. Let me refer first to the timeline. The report that everybody looks at as, in a sense, the first report of a potential causal link between Primodos and birth defects was, of course, the report led by Isabel Gal in 1967. There had been earlier indications of potential problems, and there have continued to be indications up until most recently. But it is not just that the NHS, through its various regulatory regimes, did not act on the basis of the 1967 report; later, even when Primodos was being withdrawn in other countries, it continued to be available to women here in the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead rightly said in his intervention, we are not talking about some private clinics and doctors; we are talking about GPs in the national health service. It is that issue of responsibility that the Government need to address; that is important in relation to redress.
The Cumberlege committee said that the independent redress agency
“should be created based on models operating effectively in other countries.”
There are other countries where this issue has been recognised and redress is available. A redress scheme is being worked on for sodium valproate and for pelvic mesh. Why not for Primodos? I sincerely hope, now that the constraints of the legal case have been removed, that the Minister will be able to give a positive indication at the end of the debate that the Government will indeed consider redress for those who took Primodos and those who have suffered as a result.
My final point is one that was made to me recently by Marie Lyon. Women who took Primodos, and who saw their children suffer, often feel guilty; they feel somehow that it was them and their fault. It was not. They have no reason to feel guilty at all. The drug was given to them by their GPs. I hope that the Minister will stand up and say very clearly that women who took Primodos and whose children suffered were not in any way at fault and should not feel guilty at all. The fault lay with the NHS.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I pay tribute to the work she has done and place on record my thanks to the all-party parliamentary group on hormone pregnancy tests, which is very ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who secured the debate. She demonstrated her passionate support for those affected by this great injustice that it has taken far too long to put right.
I would also like to mention the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, led by the redoubtable Marie Lyon, whom we all know and have met, as well as our constituents who have been subject to the terrible effects of taking Primodos in their pregnancies. Both the APPG and the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests have campaigned tirelessly—this year marks a decade of the APPG—for countless families who have had their lives irrevocably changed by the impact of Primodos.
Locally, my constituent Marjorie Lancaster-Smith has long been an active campaigner within these groups and has shared with me at length the impact that Primodos has had on her family. Following the use of Primodos during Marjorie’s pregnancy, her daughter Tania has complex heart and intestinal problems, which she has had to live with her entire life. These have impacted both Tania and the family as a whole, and she has had several periods of severe ill health, operations and complications that have been life-threatening on several occasions. Both Marjorie and Tania are missing vital medical records—in fact, there are none at all for the first few years of Tania’s life or for Marjorie’s pregnancy. It is therefore very difficult to have definitive proof of exactly what happened to them. This is a convenient omission—that is all I am going to say.
This campaign has been incredibly trying for many families, as they have often felt sidelined and stonewalled at every turn as they pursue justice for their now grown-up children. However, as this debate and those attending it today demonstrate, they remain determined to win their campaign for answers and redress. As Marjorie movingly put it in one of our recent communications,
“Nevertheless while there is breath in my body, I will continue to support my daughter and all our members who struggle every day because of the damage caused by Primodos. It is an absolute disgrace that they have not received justice and that Bayer”—
the pharmaceutical company that manufactured this drug—
“and the Government think they can just walk away scot-free.”
In the three years since Baroness Cumberlege’s independent medicines and medical devices safety review reported, we have seen long overdue work undertaken to support those impacted by pelvic mesh and sodium valproate, including the development of redress schemes, but Primodos victims have had no action whatsoever—indeed, there has been total silence and avoidance. I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead that as the legal process has now ended, what ended with it was the Government’s latest excuse for not pursuing some form of redress. I hope that the Minister is able to reassure us that that position has now changed.
As other Members have highlighted, the all-party parliamentary group has three clear asks of the Government, which I hope the Minister will address when she responds: first, that the sensible and necessary recommendations made in the independent medicines and medical devices safety review relating to Primodos be implemented, including the creation of a redress fund for the families affected; secondly, that there is an acknowledgment of and explanation for the present lack of implementation of those recommendations, because it has now been a long time—three years; and finally, the withdrawal of the highly disputed findings of the expert working group, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East talked about. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead has called those findings into question, and she explained in her contribution why she did that.
Families such as Marjorie’s are long overdue answers for this miscarriage of justice, and they are all desperate to ensure that no further families suffer the adverse consequences of medicines they take or medical devices they have been given by the NHS without having access to redress much more quickly. They have endured great suffering, and they will continue to experience that suffering as a product of the use of Primodos during pregnancy. That suffering cannot be diminished, and it is a tragedy that they have had to wait so long and been so neglected, and that they are now being stalled just when they thought that finally, after years of campaigning, their suffering and the adverse effects had been recognised. I call on the Government to build on the statements of previous Ministers and finally take action to implement the recommendations of the review in full—critically, including the consideration of a redress scheme specifically for Primodos-affected families.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
I thank the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and pay tribute to all the work they have done. I also thank Beccy’s family, who I am going to talk about today and who I met recently, and Beccy. Beccy’s family are sitting in the Gallery today.
This is Beccy and her mum Helen’s story. In 1970, when Helen thought she was pregnant, she went to her doctor in Wrexham, north Wales, to confirm the pregnancy. At the time, Helen, aged 24, was a mature student at a teacher training college. Her husband had just got a job in Stourbridge, and she was living with her parents while completing her college course and needed to be sure about the pregnancy as soon as possible. At the time, there was no reliable simple pregnancy test available. The GP said that there was a new product available, which would be the quickest way to confirm the pregnancy. He produced two pills from his desk, for which there was no prescription. The drug was Primodos. These were to be taken on consecutive days. If she was not pregnant, she would have a period within a few days. If she was pregnant, there would be no period. Helen’s medical record confirms that she took Primodos in March 1970.
By way of an explainer about Primodos, the same components that are in Primodos are contained in oral contraceptives, but at 40 times the strength of a contraceptive—40 times. That puts it in context. At the time, the doctor explained that the tablets came with a warning that they should not be used for pregnancy testing if the woman was not young and healthy. For example, they should not be used if the woman was older or suffering with conditions such as diabetes or heart problems. None of this applied to Helen—she was only 24—so he decided that this would be the best way to confirm whether she was pregnant.
Beccy was born on 7 November 1970. Her mum had a normal pregnancy and a normal birth. Beccy weighed in at 8 lb 4 oz and appeared a bonny, normal baby. At first, Beccy appeared to develop normally, though she did have many screaming sessions. As first-time parents, they did not think this unusual. Beccy seemed generally fit and healthy, though it seemed that she was not developing as other babies were. When she did not sit up, roll over or crawl at the expected times, her mum was told that she was just being a fussy young mother, but as Beccy got older, it became apparent that she was severely handicapped.
Beccy has never walked and has always been wheelchair dependent. She has curvature of the spine and some deformation of her hands and feet. She had an operation to try to straighten one of her feet when she was six. These problems are worsening as she gets older. Her mental impairments are very severe. She has had many diagnoses including cerebral palsy and autism, and this leads to very complex and challenging behaviours. She will often go days without food and refuse to co-operate with her carers. She has very limited speech, though it is believed she understands much more than she is capable of expressing. This can be very frustrating, and she is often reduced to very distressing screaming sessions. Beccy has been subjected to innumerable tests and procedures, including full genetic screening. There has been no explanation or cause for her impairments. Primodos is the only common denominator.
Beccy lives in a residential home with 24-hour care. She can do virtually nothing without help. She does stay at home with her family regularly, which is very important to her and her family; when she is at home, she relies on her family for all her needs, but that is becoming more and more difficult with age. It is also very distressing for her mum, who is terrified about what will happen to Beccy when she is not around. I have nothing but admiration for Beccy’s family, and it was a no-brainer that I would want to speak in today’s debate, especially as I am not sure that anyone is giving the families a fair hearing.
The history of Primodos has been well described, so I just want to highlight the issues that are pressing for this family. The first is the report of the expert working group in 2017. The working procedures of the EWG and the conclusions of its report have been widely criticised, and the family are now seeking a properly independent review of them. They believe that such a review is necessary for acknowledgement and justice for their daughter. They want to be listened to, and I want them to be listened to. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and others have talked about the fact that these were not private clinics: it was the NHS that issued Primodos, so I think we are all looking for that redress.
I therefore want to raise with the Minister the necessity of a fully independent review of the expert working group report, so that all these families and individuals can be heard. After all, the first warning signs of harm were in 1958, when a Dr Edwards said that Primodos can cause damage to the foetus in the early stages of pregnancy. It is not something that has just come to light; it is something that has continually been raised as an issue. Many more warnings were forwarded to the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the UK regulator, from 1958 to 1967. All of those warnings were suppressed by the committee and Primodos remained on the market until 1978—20 years after the first warning was received by the UK regulator. These families want a fair hearing, and I believe they deserve one. I support the family 100% in their call for the UK regulator to stop protecting the drug companies and start protecting women and children.
So that is Beccy’s story. It tugs at the heartstrings. Not only has Beccy been robbed of a normal life; the effect on the family has been all-consuming. However, her story is not a one-off. The context to Beccy’s story is simple: her mum took Primodos at the age of 24 to establish whether she was pregnant, because she was advised to do so. Primodos contains the same components as oral contraceptives, as I mentioned, but at 40 times the strength. We do not have to be medical experts to work that one out.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb). I think the whole House is grateful to her for telling the story of her constituents and their daughter Beccy. It is so important that the Minister and colleagues hear the impact that Primodos has had on ordinary families, and why we need justice.
I have been involved in this campaign for nearly a decade, but there are three women who have been critical in leading it. The first is the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has chaired the APPG, but who has also done many more things: she has had more meetings, asked more questions and sent more letters, and we are all grateful to her. She is one of the greatest campaigners this House has seen in recent times. Like others, I also pay tribute to Marie Lyon and her husband, who have campaigned with more courage and bravery than I have seen from anyone outside this House in my time here. They are relentless, representing the interests of thousands of women and their families. They are not going to give up until they get that justice, and neither should we.
The third woman I want to mention is a lady called Sue Ilsley, the constituent who brought this issue to my attention. Sadly, Sue died earlier this year. I actually got to know her before this, because she was a campaigner on mental health issues in my constituency; as far as I was concerned, she was the best campaigner. I think that was partly because her mental health had been impacted by her experience of having taken Primodos as a teenager and then giving birth to a daughter—a wonderful daughter, but a daughter who had serious deformities as a result of Primodos. She campaigned on mental health, and later she brought the Primodos issue to me. When I used to speak to her, I could obviously feel her hurt and her anger, but just as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, I could also feel her guilt. She should not have had any.
There are guilty people. The right hon. Lady mentioned the NHS, but I want to take it back: Schering, the original drug company that has now been bought by Bayer, bears a lot of the guilt. All the professionals and the various medical regulators who have looked at this issue over the years bear the guilt. We should not finish campaigning until those guilty people are brought to justice. Experts and judges have looked at this recently and said, “They are not guilty”—well, they are. Look at the evidence. The expert working group was shocking, and when the right hon. Lady was Prime Minister, she was quite right not to accept its report and to go for the review. We had a debate in 2019 in which that report was pulled apart, and we have seen the work of Carl Heneghan, Neil Vargesson and others, who have proved as scientists and statistical experts that the evidence is overwhelming.
I am not a scientist or a medic, but I can sort of understand legal notes, and when I spoke in this House in December 2017, I read extensive extracts from the minutes of meetings held on 20 and 21 December 1977 at the Goldsmith Building, Temple, London. Schering, the original pharmaceutical company, was getting legal advice from a Mr Clothier QC. I will not repeat that speech today, but I will repeat a few of the things that I mentioned:
“Mr Clothier felt, if the case were tried to the end by a judge, the chances were that the company would be found to be in neglect of its duty.”
This was in 1977.
“Clothier stated that there seemed to be a 5:1 chance that, if there were a malformation in a child and the mother took Primodos while pregnant, it was the fault of the drug”,—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 707.]
so Schering knew that. That was its legal advice decades ago. Page 7 of the memo from the Berlin archives, which this note came from, states that Mr Clothier told Schering that
“there were 2 alternatives open to us—one is to establish a voluntary scheme of compensation in which a justifiable claim will be given compensation without proof of liability but simply accepting moral responsibility.”
The company’s review came to that conclusion. Decades later, why has it not happened?
The other alternative was to take the claims to court. What I found really interesting, and what I want to focus colleagues’ attention on, is that according to the memo, the Schering representative, Dr Detering, said that he was
“hesitant in establishing a scheme as the product is marketed world-wide. If we introduce this scheme in one country, we should introduce it in other countries.”
This product was marketed in 81 countries. That is the issue here; that is why there has been a cover-up for decades. That is why the medical regulators have stood behind the pharmaceutical company in question, because they know this would cost the company a fortune. Its shareholders would have to cough up—possibly cough up billions. In my view, this is potentially one of the biggest cover-ups of a pharmaceutical outrage that the world has ever seen.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful contribution. Does he agree that the recent drama documentary on Netflix, “Painkiller”, highlights just how this kind of issue happens and keeps on happening, and that if we do not get to the heart of it—if we do not stop pharmaceutical companies flooding the markets unregulated and drugs getting to patients, including our constituents, and doing them damage—it is just going to continue?
Ed Davey
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I did not see that particular programme, but I am sure she is right. The key thing is that we need to make sure that those large organisations are held to account. That is our job, and we have been failing, because we have not held them to account—we are still here, many years and many debates later. We have had a Prime Minister on our side, and these people still have not been held to account.
Sir Mike Penning
Actually, the records show that this issue did get to court in America, and the drug company did a deal—as happens in American courts—on a non-disclosure. Why would a drug company do that unless it was trying to cover up? It settled in the American courts, as I understand it, but on the basis that all the information was destroyed and would never be disclosed. Those are the sorts of things we are dealing with.
Ed Davey
Yes, what a surprise. All these examples add up to show that a lot of powerful people are trying to stop justice being done in this country and around the world, so I am so pleased to see cross-party support here today, in a very powerful way, to make sure that is put right.
Justice should come before the interests of the shareholders and justice should come before the professional reputations of the medical people on the regulatory bodies, and that is why the Minister should listen to the House today. Absolutely we should see the recommendations of the review come forward and absolutely there should be the compensation fund. She should get up at the Dispatch Box today and announce that. The offer that was made, I am told—I have not seen it in writing, but I am told an offer was made—was a £1 million total pot for all the families, which would have been a few thousand pounds per family. I hope the Minister does not suggest that that will be good enough. We need a proper compensation fund, and we will not stop fighting until that the Government provide for that. I hope she will respond to the answer from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead to my intervention about why Government solicitors are threatening the families and telling them they have to sign agreements that they will not continue any legal action, which goes exactly to the point that the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) made.
I want to see that action and I want the recommendations of the review to be implemented, but I want to put on the record that I am a bit suspicious. I think those involved are going to try to wriggle out of this in some way. They are going to make sure that no liability is mentioned, but they were liable. They knew it in the 1960s and they knew it in the 1970s: they are liable, and everyone who has been looking at this case knows it. I want the review to be implemented because the families need the money now. Individuals are dying, such as my constituent, and people are worried about their adult children and need their adult children to have the money now. I want the Government to go ahead and do that now. But I will tell the House what I really want: I want a public inquiry. I am fed up with these reviews. The review was great, but because this is such a scandal—a global pharmaceutical scandal—we want more. All this will come out only if the lawyers cannot threaten people and have non-disclosure agreements, so I want an inquiry in public—a public inquiry so that these people can be properly held to account once and for all.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for bringing this debate to the House. Listening to all the powerful speeches really makes me proud of the Chamber. This is the Chamber at its best, with the powerful speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey).
How distressing it must be for the women and families harmed by Primodos that they are still having to fight nearly five decades on. Their road to justice has been long and cruel, and it is shameful that we find it necessary to debate this again. How can it be that the Primodos families are still not being properly supported and compensated after all the evidence that has been presented?
Sadly, Primodos is not an isolated case, and we have seen many examples over the years of our regulatory bodies failing to keep patients safe from new medicines and medical devices. In 2013, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency listed 27 medicines that had been withdrawn on safety grounds. The average time they were on the market was 11 years. I wonder how many times we will allow history to repeat itself. There have been reports and reviews calling for reform, and back in 2004 the Health Committee undertook an inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. It noted, of drug companies, the
“closeness that has developed between regulators and companies”,
which had
“deprived the industry of rigorous quality control and audit.”
It also highlighted
“the MHRA’s poor history in recognising drug risks, poor communication and lack of public trust.”
In 2020, Dame June Raine, the chief executive officer of the MHRA, stated that her agency had transformed itself from watchdog to enabler, so I ask: has anything improved in the intervening 20 years since the Health Committee inquiry? I fear not, and I think the time has come for another inquiry of similar scope and depth, only with more robust outcomes. That is what we want—robust outcomes.
In 2020, the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, “First Do No Harm”, found that Primodos, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh had all caused “avoidable harm”. The review showed that patients had been let down, and it called for significant reforms of the MHRA, due to its mishandling of safety concerns. The review was clear that there is “gross under-reporting” of suspected adverse reactions and that
“systems are both too complex and too diffuse to allow early signal detection.”
That theme keeps coming up, and in a recent meeting of the APPG on pandemic response and recovery we heard from Professor Carl Heneghan, who described widespread problems with the reporting of adverse drugs and device reactions, which continue to be a major cause of hospital admissions. As many as 98 out of 100 adverse drug reactions go unreported.
The APPG, of which I am a co-chair, was told that the MHRA is running a system that is too slow to act and is beset by conflicts. Failure to act now will only lead to more harm. We also heard from the solicitor Peter Todd who was acting for 43 individuals who suffered blood clots as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccination. He described how the Government’s vaccine damage payment scheme is operating poorly and failing to help those who have been injured. Not only is the current system unable to protect patients from harm, but it is failing to look after those who have already been harmed.
Three years on from Baroness Cumberlege’s landmark review, the Government have not fully implemented its recommendations. In particular, we are still waiting for redress schemes to be set up to meet the costs of additional care and support for those who were harmed by Primodos, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Why has that not been done?
This is a bleak and worrying situation, so I will try to end on a more positive note by commending the important work of the hon. Member for Bolton South East as chair of the APPG on hormone pregnancy tests. My final tribute must go to Marie Lyon, whose tireless campaigning on Primodos over the decades has been inspirational. She deserves the full support and respect of this House, and I hope she and others harmed by this drug can finally get justice.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my near constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), and I join her and others in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for her campaigns over the years, and of course to Marie Lyon for her many years of campaigning for justice for the families affected, including in my constituency.
When Baroness Cumberlege’s report “First Do No Harm” was published in 2020, it finally offered those families hope of justice. It was unequivocal in finding that those affected by Primodos had “suffered avoidable harm” and should be entitled to support and financial redress. That should have been a landmark moment. The then Health Secretary apologised, appearing to take responsibility and accept the report’s verdict, so it is really so disappointing that, as I stand here today, no Primodos-affected families have received any compensation payment to address what they have been through.
I want to emphasise the impact on individual lives by looking at two families in my constituency. Patricia McClellan had two children, giving birth to a daughter in 1969 and to her son, John, in 1971. She did not take any hormone pregnancy tests before giving birth to her daughter, who was born healthy, but she was prescribed Primodos when pregnant with John, who was born effectively missing an arm. When doctors came to assess him a couple of days after his birth, Patricia described being asked if she had taken any medication during her pregnancy, to which she replied that she had been given Primodos. She said:
“I will never forget the professor and the Doctors took themselves into my bathroom for a private conversation. I felt powerless as events happened around me.”
She had a succession of other disempowering, worrying and disappointing experiences with medical professionals while caring for John of the type that were highlighted in Baroness Cumberlege’s review.
She said:
“I have felt as though I have been kept in the dark for over 40 years. I just want answers and justice for my son and hopefully some closure to the trauma, guilt and stress that has affected almost my entire life.”
Sadly, Patricia died in 2019, never having received the closure and justice that she needed.
John has lived his whole life with the impact of his disability, and struggles with red tape and constantly having to go through the processes to get recognition of his disability from the Department for Work and Pensions. He and his daughter Leah, Patricia’s granddaughter, continue to fight for justice alongside other Primodos-affected families. Leah said to me:
“Being the daughter of a Primodos victim has also had its effects on me. I’ve lost trust in our health officials, I’ve witnessed the lies that have been told time and time again. Seeing my father deteriorate mentally and physically because of this is worrying for me.”
In Leah’s words, too many people affected by Primodos
“have sadly died since all this began. It truly feels like the Government is just waiting for them to pass on so this can be brushed under the carpet.”
Peter Dowd
The mother of one of my constituents was given Primodos in August 1972, two years after the standing joint committee for propriety in medicine said that it should have been withdrawn. Warnings were there for years. Why did that happen? Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituent, and his mother and father, who are up in the Gallery today, require justice to be done, and to be seen to be done by way of redress?
Jeff Smith
I could not agree more, and families across the country have been affected in such a way.
The Pierce family are another family in my constituency whose whole lives have been shaped by Primodos. Edward and Janet Pierce’s daughter, Louise, is now 54 years old. She was born with several different disabilities, which the families are convinced were caused by her mother having been prescribed Primodos. Louise has a severe mental disability, profound hearing loss, and difficulty walking. She has always required full-time care, which has been provided by her parents for most of her life. She lived at home with Edward and Janet until she was 50. Edward said:
“We didn’t realise the physical and mental effect this was having on our lives, it just creeps up on you.”
In 2018, Janet had a serious stress-related breakdown, leaving her with short-term memory loss and lack of awareness, and Edward now acts as her full-time carer. Louise went into full-time residential accommodation at the time of Janet’s illness. Edward said:
“I’m sure you can imagine the devastating effect this is still having on all our lives.”
It is so disappointing that the Government rejected the report’s recommendation for a new independent redress agency, and instead again highlighted the existing legal routes for redress. The Government apologised to people affected by the Primodos scandal, but are offering them no support. Those families lack the funding to be able properly to challenge the Government in court and get redress from existing legal routes, and they are being offered nothing else by the Government.
One of the specific recommendations in the Cumberlege review was the establishment of an ex gratia scheme for the victims of hormone pregnancy tests, and discretionary payments to provide redress for the stress, anxiety, psychological harm and toll of fighting for recognition experienced by those affected. That is what these families deserve.
Haven’t these families suffered enough? The mothers who were given Primodos are in their 70s and 80s now, and some have sadly died. Their children are mostly in their 50s. Time is running out to give them the redress they deserve. The Cumberlege report stated that
“while there is disagreement between experts about whether Primodos caused birth defects, the fact remains that thousands of women and unborn children were exposed to a risk that was acknowledged at the time.”
Primodos was deemed dangerous enough to pregnant women to be pulled off the shelves, and Baroness Cumberlege found that those families had suffered avoidable harm. In such circumstances, and having commissioned the report, surely it is the Government’s moral duty to implement that report’s recommendations in full or, failing that, to explain how those families will get the financial redress they deserve.
In July 2021, the then co-chairs of the all-party parliament group first do no harm responded to the Government’s response, welcoming their acceptance of four of the review’s nine recommendations, and a further one in principle. It also said:
“But we are deeply disappointed the Government has rejected calls for an independent redress agency or any redress for families whose lives have been devastated by medicines or medical devices. For those families justice has not been done today.”
One of those co-chairs, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has the purse strings and he could make those ex gratia payments happen.
We have heard today from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). She knows this issue so well and her remarks were powerful. I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) that the drug companies must be held responsible. Ultimately, they should be the ones who pay, but in the meantime it is time for the Government to stop hiding and avoiding their responsibilities. It is time to act, and time to give these families the justice they deserve.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I was moved and saddened to read of the lifelong health difficulties experienced by one of my constituents, whose mother was given the Primodos hormone pregnancy test. It is a story of school, work and family life disrupted over a period of decades, with frequent hospital visits, multiple operations, organ transplants, and a lifetime requirement to take a powerful concoction of immunosuppressants and other medication. I was hugely impressed and inspired to hear of this brave individual’s determination to succeed in life despite that adversity, and I believe it is time that he, and other Primodos victims, are finally given justice. I pay tribute to all the campaigners who have continued their fight for redress over all these years, despite so many setbacks.
The first warning of harm caused by hormone pregnancy tests came as early as 1958. Over the following period, many further problems were highlighted to the regulator of the time, the Committee on Safety of Medicines. As we have heard, the 1967 study by Dr Isabel Gal provided a clear warning of the serious damage being done by those tests, yet the sale of the product was not formally halted until 1978, 20 years after the first safety alerts, and 11 years after Dr Gal’s ground-breaking study. Since then, research has repeatedly indicated that taking the test increased the risk of children being born with debilitating and life-shortening birth defects such as damaged limbs, brain damage and heart problems.
A major review was conducted at the University of Oxford in 2018, led by the distinguished scientist Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. That study looked at 26 hormone pregnancy test studies involving over 76,000 women. The researchers concluded that taking drugs such as Primodos increased the risk of birth defects by 40%. They found “a clear association” between Primodos and several forms of malformation.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I am a biomedical scientist by background, and having read that review, what I find important is the way the researchers interrogated all the subsequent research that had been done, to ensure that there was no bias in any of the studies they included, and they excluded any studies that they felt were biased, using stringent statistical analysis. That makes the review all the more important to listen to.
Theresa Villiers
I agree with the hon. Lady. It was a rigorous study, and it is a concern that in 2019 MHRA experts rejected that report, arguing that the quality of the studies examined was poor and the methods used to analyse them were
“not in line with best practice.”
As the hon. Lady pointed out, I do not think that is justified, and the Oxford team behind the research strongly refuted the claim made by the MHRA.
Despite all the scientific studies and research, campaigners have so far failed in their attempts to get compensation through the courts, and they have not been able to establish clear enough evidence of causation. That has been a massive hurdle in many cases over the years, not least in relation to tobacco, where it took decades of legal battles finally to show beyond doubt the causative link between smoking and cancer.
One of the problems faced by the families campaigning for compensation in this case is that many of the scientific studies of the ’70s and ’80s just do not meet the standards we necessarily expect in the 2020s. Many times in this House the call has come from Back Benchers loud and clear to support the families, to listen to their stories and to secure a fair outcome at last. The pressure that has come from this Chamber in so many debates helped to secure the welcome decision by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) to include Primodos in the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, led by Baroness Cumberlege.
Baroness Cumberlege concluded that Primodos was responsible for avoidable harm, that it continued to be used for years longer than it should have been, and that a fund should be set up to support families with the cost of care. She was very clear that, in the face of growing concerns, it should have been withdrawn from 1967. Her report acknowledges the disagreement between experts on whether Primodos caused birth defects, but she stated
“the fact remains that thousands of women and unborn children were exposed to a risk that was acknowledged at the time. That should not have happened. This is not a case of us judging the actions of the past by the standards of today. This was discussed at the time, but not acted upon. The system failed.”
Those conclusions from Baroness Cumberlege are truly damning. We have a Government-sponsored independent review concluding that the system failed the victims and survivors of the Primodos tragedy. We must find a way to put that right and ensure that the families get the recognition and financial redress they deserve. I urge Ministers to listen to the House today and take action at last. We cannot let this injustice continue.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
There is considerable evidence indicating that those women who took the drug Primodos—prescribed by their general practitioner—and who were pregnant at that time gave birth to babies with serious birth defects, including deformities and disabilities, missing limbs, cleft palates, brain damage and damage to internal organs. In some cases, those women miscarried or had stillbirths.
Sir Mike Penning
This is a really important point: Primodos was not prescribed; no prescription was written. No pharmacist could look at the patient and say, “Is this the right drug for that person?” It was a drawer opened, tablets taken out and pushed across. I know it is not intentional, but the word “prescription” is slightly misleading.
Allan Dorans
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention; he is absolutely correct. The surviving victims are now mainly in their 40s and 50s. Many face a host of new medical problems and their bodies continue to suffer. Many have died prematurely.
Peter Dowd
The Public Authorities (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—would require public authorities to admit responsibility following adverse and mass casualty incidents. Some 97 people died as a result of Hillsborough, and a scandalous cover-up went on for decades. Would the hon. Gentleman agree with me, my constituents in the Gallery and other constituents in the Gallery, that it is time to end the cover-up and to establish how many people have died prematurely as a result of Primodos?
Allan Dorans
I would welcome that type of inquiry and the opportunity to view the outcome.
Despite serious concerns being expressed by the eminent paediatrician, Dr Isabel Gal, in 1967 indicating the possible dangers of Primodos, no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years later. There is strong and compelling evidence of systematic regulatory failures, demonstrating that the committees tasked with safeguarding the health of pregnant women failed in their duty of care.
When I was elected in 2019, I had never heard of the drug Primodos, and I suspect that is the case for many Members. I had heard of thalidomide, as it received far greater coverage in the media at the time. However, since then I have learned much about the horrors caused by Primodos—the devastating effect it had on unborn babies and on the babies born with horrendous birth defects, and the continuing, unimaginable tragic consequences for the mothers and families whose lives have been so cruelly affected by the drug. It is an absolute disgrace and shameful that those families have not only been utterly abandoned and ignored by the drugs companies responsible, but also by successive Governments, who actively put up barriers to avoid accepting the consequences of the manufacture, approval, prescribing and giving out of Primodos.
The drugs companies involved in the production of Primodos, the medical authorities at the time who failed to protect people and successive Governments are all liable for the suffering caused to the victims of Primodos. They are all culpable and guilty of negligence, for failing to put right this horrendous wrong put upon innocent people. It cannot be right that the fight for justice in these circumstances has been left in the hands of a few determined individuals battling against a huge global pharmaceutical conglomerate with millions of pounds of resources and our own Government.
I highlight the case of my constituent, Nan. I have her permission to share her experience and the effect that Primodos had on her and her daughter, Michelle. In January 1975, Nan was a recently married, healthy young woman. Feeling sick and suspecting she may be pregnant, she went to her GP for a pregnancy test, expecting—as was normal at that time—a urine test. Instead, her doctor gave her two Primodos tablets. By 1975, Primodos had already been banned for use as a pregnancy test for five years in Norway and Sweden. Nan put her utmost trust in the knowledge, experience and expertise of her GP. It was subsequently confirmed that she was about seven or eight weeks pregnant. She had a very uneventful pregnancy during which she neither smoked nor drank alcohol.
On 28 August 1975, Nan’s daughter, Michelle, was born. It was immediately discovered that Michelle was born with a hole in her diaphragm, which had allowed her bowel and spleen and part of her liver and kidney to be forced in to her chest cavity, crushing her lung. She was not expected to live, but through the exceptional skills of our national health service she survived and is now 48 years of age. Throughout her life, she has endured numerous operations and surgeries and long periods of hospitalisation. She has suffered severe health issues, including breathing difficulties, a weakened immune system, numerous bowel obstructions and inflammatory bowel infections, and she has been unable to conceive children. The horrendous effects of the debilitating physical, psychological and medical conditions and the extremely challenging health conditions suffered by Michelle and her parents for the past 48 years just cannot be adequately described by me with words.
When Michelle was born in 1975, Nan was unaware that the drug that she had been given to test for pregnancy had been associated with birth defects for the previous eight years. It was not until some two and a half years later that she read an article in the press that reported on a number of cases linking birth defects to Primodos, including internal organ damage similar to that suffered by Michelle. Since that time, Nan, along with many other women, has been fighting the injustice, where no one has ever been held responsible for the damage caused to so many lives through prescribing Primodos, which had been approved by the Government.
In February 2018, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced that Baroness Cumberlege would oversee an independent medicines and medical devices safety review. This review was, among other things, instructed to consider the consequences of Primodos. One of the conclusions in the report by Baroness Cumberlege is that Primodos should have been withdrawn from the market in 1967, after the first report by Dr Gal. However, the Government refused to accept responsibility for the effects of Primodos without a proven causal association, but admitted later, in a Sky TV interview, that there was a possible association. There was a moral duty for Government representatives on the Committee on Safety of Medicines to protect patients, but they failed in their duty of care by suppressing the evidence of harm caused by the drug. Even today, the Government continue to deny that they suppressed evidence, while supporting the flawed conclusions of the 2017 expert working group.
The damage to individuals, lives and families caused by Primodos, successive Governments’ lack of action and the failure to prevent, is immeasurable. This could be a far greater tragedy than thalidomide. Apart from frustration at the pharmaceutical companies and the glacial pace of Government in righting this tragic, historical wrong, the most chilling words we hear, increasingly regularly, are: “We have recently lost another of our Primodos family.” The tragedy is that we all know that those people died without receiving the justice they deserved. Even if compensation were paid, it would never fully compensate the families who were so tragically affected, or take away the immense guilt experienced by mothers who feel that they were in some way to blame for the defects that their children suffered.
It is well past the time for the current Government to put right this historical wrong, end the scandal and give some security to those who have suffered so much, thus allowing the mothers, fathers and the children who have survived some dignity and compensation for the tragedy that was caused through no fault of their own. The very least the Government can do is accept responsibility for the tragic circumstances, immediately issue a full apology to everyone affected by Primodos and compensate the victims. I and my party urge the Government to accept and commit to implementing the full recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety review and to set up a redress fund for families affected by Primodos.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
When we get to the winding-up speeches, it will be six minutes, eight minutes, eight minutes and then we will leave two minutes for the proposer of the motion.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate and for her outstanding and ongoing work on the issue.
I am here today on behalf of my constituent Helen Barham, who since her birth has suffered from the brain disorder agenesis of the corpus callosum, hydrocephalus, damage to her skeletal system, and a brain haemorrhage at only 12 weeks, leading to epilepsy. She wears callipers and boots due to her feet deformities. She has had to have a number of major surgeries throughout her lifetime, including spinal surgery and a total hysterectomy. Despite all that, she still awaits compensation, which would allow her a personal carer and more comfort than she currently lives in.
Following Helen’s brain haemorrhage at 12 weeks in 1975, her mother Diane was told, in Diane’s words, that Helen would be spastic, mentally retarded, partially sighted and that, if the doctor was her, they would go home and forget about Helen, as she would be nothing but a cabbage. Diane and Helen have defied that awful prognosis. Helen has an active social life, with swimming, discos and holidays to Butlins.
Over the last almost 50 years, Diane has tirelessly kept fighting for Helen to have the best quality of life possible. However, ultimately the opportunity for a normal and healthy life was taken from Helen while she was still in the womb, because in 1974, Diane was given two pills following a missed period. It was only when Helen was three years old that a doctor from Great Ormond Street Hospital informed Diane that it was likely that those two Primodos pills were the cause of Helen’s disabilities.
Although Diane has dedicated much of her life to Helen’s care, as she has said, it has often come at a cost to her other children, her marriage, and her relationship with her parents. She is getting older and less able to look after Helen. All Diane asks is for Helen to receive compensation so that she can have someone to care for her all the time. Helen is currently in hospital after experiencing yet another complication following recent surgery to remove her gall bladder. Doctors were unable to remove Helen’s gall bladder fully and she is still struggling on the ward.
I welcome the Government’s apology to families by the former Health Secretary on behalf of the healthcare system, but it is financial assistance that families like Diane and Helen’s need. As has already been said, the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety review led by Baroness Cumberlege found that the drug should have been removed from the market in 1967, and that both the state and the manufacturer had an ethical responsibility to fund a financial scheme for those harmed to help them with their care costs. Having been born in 1974, Helen certainly falls into that camp.
The Government are already working towards redress systems for valproate and vaginal mesh, as advised by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety review, but there has been no progress on a scheme for Primodos families. The 2018 systematic review of historical human studies by Professor Carl Heneghan clearly demonstrated that Primodos had a clear association with different forms of malformations, including musculo- skeletal, neurological and neurogenetical forms, all of which have affected Helen.
Modern science is also paving the way. Previously it was impossible to prove a direct link with human studies, as that would require testing the drug on pregnant women, but Professor Neil Vargesson has found similar outcomes to those for children born following their mothers being prescribed Primodos when testing the drug on zebrafish, chosen for their genetic similarity to humans. A new study has used chicken embryos and human cell lines, and even low doses produce developmental abnormalities. The full results are due later this year. Baroness Cumberlege felt that there was enough evidence of a link between Primodos and complications from birth for financial support in February 2018. Since then, the evidence has only grown.
I would like to reiterate to the Minister today how much difference the financial redress recommended by the IMMDS would make to Helen and Diane’s quality of life. Diane trusted her NHS doctor and our medical system, and now we need to support her and her family as they continue to face Helen’s complications together.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate, and thank her for her outstanding work in leading this campaign in Parliament. I also pay tribute to all the families of children who were born with birth defects after their pregnant mothers took Primodos for the courage that they have shown. In particular, I pay tribute to Marie Lyon—who, I am pleased to see, is here with us today—for her tireless work.
Those affected should not have to fight for justice. I join colleagues in the debate in calling on the Government to acknowledge the fact that the recommendations in the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety review relating to Primodos-affected families have not been implemented, and to explain why; to implement those recommendations and to set up a redress fund for families affected by Primodos; and to withdraw the 2017 expert working group report on hormone pregnancy tests, which has been disputed by academics and is inconsistent with other more independent studies.
In their fight for justice, the families have suffered setback after setback. The latest came a few months ago when claims for damages against Bayer Pharma, Schering Health Care Ltd, Aventis Pharma Ltd and the Government were struck out in the High Court, partly owing to lack of funding for legal representation. That was a bitterly disappointing blow.
The Government have a moral duty to set up the redress fund for those affected. As far back as the late 1950s, concerns were raised that hormone pregnancy tests, the most commonly used of which was Primodos, could cause abnormalities in a developing baby. Further studies in the UK and elsewhere from the late 1960s to the early 1970s suggested a link between the use of hormone pregnancy tests and a wide range of serious birth defects.
It took until 1975 for the Committee on Safety of Medicines to recommend that hormone pregnancy tests should no longer be used. The committee said that there was “little justification” for them, as alternatives were available. It then sent an alert letter to all doctors in the UK, advising them of a possible association between hormone pregnancy tests and an increased incidence of congenital abnormalities. The letter recommended that doctors “should not normally prescribe” those products as pregnancy tests.
However, it has been reported that Primodos sometimes continued to be used as a pregnancy test within the NHS until it was withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer, Schering Chemicals Ltd, in 1978. By that stage, the damage had been done. Legal proceedings by the affected families began, but were discontinued in the early 1980s. It was not until early 2014, and the discovery of documents from the 1960s that reportedly showed that studies suggested that hormone pregnancy tests caused miscarriages and congenital abnormalities, that a new campaign called for an independent public inquiry into them.
Criticisms of the 2017 independent expert working group report on hormone pregnancy tests included the fact that it did not examine regulatory issues and that a number of documents had not been included in the review. Additionally, the methodology and findings in the report have been disputed by academics and are inconsistent with other academic reviews, as today’s motion highlights. One of those reviews was by a group of researchers at the University of Oxford, led by Professor Carl Heneghan. The researchers concluded:
“The evidence of an association”—
by which they mean between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects— “has previously been deemed weak, and previous litigation and reviews have been inconclusive. However, we believe that this systematic review shows an association of oral HPTs with congenital malformations.”
Despite that, the Government say that they currently have no plans to reassess the findings of the expert working group review. I hope that, today, we hear a different response from the Minister.
In 2018, the independent medicines and medical devices safety review was announced by the Government, led by Baroness Cumberlege. Despite the Cumberlege review’s finding that Primodos caused avoidable harm, and the clear recommendation for redress for those affected, the Government have refused to even acknowledge it. That is a grave injustice and an insult to those who have suffered. Let us remind ourselves of some of the adverse impacts that affected individuals and families have attributed to hormone pregnancy test use: congenital heart defects, dysmorphic facial features such as cleft palate and lip, digestive system and bowel issues, intellectual disability, limb defects and, tragically, death.
Sir Mike Penning
Could I add to that those who were told to have an abortion, and those who had a miscarriage or a stillbirth? Their families have been damaged almost as much, and the guilt is still with them.
Margaret Greenwood
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point and I agree. The Minister must recognise the clear moral case to support those affected. Back in 2017, the then Health Secretary apologised
“on behalf of the NHS and the whole healthcare system...to those who’ve suffered and their families, for their frustration, for the time it’s taken to get their voices heard.”
However, in the years since, the Government have failed to provide the recognition and redress that those affected by Primodos deserve. The Government must fully implement the recommendations in the independent medicines and medical devices safety review and set up a redress fund for those affected by Primodos as a matter of urgency. Those affected by Primodos have suffered enough, and they deserve justice.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I join others in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has done such terrific work campaigning on this issue? She commandeered me as we were neighbours on Upper Committee Corridor South, when I was relatively new in Parliament. Those campaigning efforts have been so important on a fundamental issue for so many of our constituents. One of my own constituents is here today, following our proceedings closely.
The case before us seems so remarkably straightforward that it is impossible to see why there is such a stick-in-the-mud attitude from the Government, though perhaps less so from the pharmaceutical companies, because they know that they are culpable and, ultimately, deserve a financial liability. Why can I be so confident of that link? There seems to be one very striking fact, which was revealed by Jason Farrell in the important work he did for Sky News: the drug was used in South Korea and Germany as an abortifacient. It was used to procure abortions. What is a drug that will do that doing to a baby? It is causing harm. That is so straightforward. We have heard already that Primodos contained 40 times the amount of hormone in a contraceptive pill. It also contained 13 times the amount of the morning-after pill. It is so clear and self-evident that harm has been caused, and therefore responsibility must be laid at someone’s door. We know from today’s debate where those doors are.
I have great sympathy for the Minister who is to respond, because there is an extraordinary, peculiar tendency of Government—one I do not understand as a Back Bencher and did not understand in government—to cover up the mistakes of long-since-passed Administrations. We have seen it with Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal and even with thalidomide. There is no doubt an almost endless list. I do not understand it—it is not the current Administration at fault. They have done nothing wrong; some were not even born—the Prime Minister was not—when the scandal started. Yet again and again, Governments and the bureaucracy will not open up, allow the real truth to come out and follow the evidence that was so brilliantly and clearly put by Baroness Cumberlege in her report.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on raising this issue, and I thank her for bringing this important debate to the Chamber and enabling us all to participate and add our contributions. I have spoken on this issue in the Chamber before, as have others, but today is important. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) said succinctly in his introduction that for the life of him he could not understand why the Government have not accepted the key issue. To him, it is an open and shut case; it is to me, too. The Government really should grasp that and come back with the answer that we all seek.
I want to speak up for all those mothers and families impacted across Northern Ireland. As the only Northern Ireland MP here in the debate, I wanted to contribute and assure those families across Northern Ireland that I am here to represent them and be their voice. The issues regarding Primodos have been ongoing for many years. We still have families fighting daily for justice, or simply for an explanation of what went wrong. The independent medicines and medical devices safety review has stated its view that from 1967, hormone pregnancy tests should no longer have been available. However, the facts show, as right hon. and hon. Members have illustrated on behalf of the families, that it was still used until 1978. I stand with right hon. and hon. Members to speak up for those who have no justice, no answers and no compensation to this day. Like the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), I wish to see compensation that reflects the loss and impact on those mothers and children and all the families.
Varying combinations of pills are used to this day by millions of women for contraception. Primodos tablets were 40 times the strength of the pill. My goodness, if we grasp that, it leads us straightaway to what happened, but nobody knew it. Campaigners have claimed that the use of the medicine in early pregnancy caused a range of devastating and lifelong impacts such as limb defects, spina bifida, congenital heart defects and developmental and learning problems, to name just a few. Furthermore, it has been claimed that the use of the drug led to miscarriage or stillbirths. The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) made that clear in his intervention, for which I thank him as it was a good reminder of the impacts.
I am pleased that it has now been decided that an apology is due. Words are great, and it is good to have the apology on the record, but as elected representatives we want support and compensation for the families who have suffered avoidable harm. I am not convinced that an apology goes far enough. I speak for those who have suffered miscarriages and stillbirths, and I have raised this issue before. In so many cases, we are unable to carry out genetic testing due to babies dying and their remains being gone, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said in his intervention. I have no doubt that so many families out there are still traumatised by the prospect that their baby did not survive because of this drug. There must be support for those parents too. I look to the Minister to consider them for any form of compensation or support that may be forthcoming. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the drug was harmful for a period of time. We had a duty of care then and we have one now to those families. The Government must not fail again.
To conclude, I believe there is scope to do more, both now and in the future, to support the families who have been suffering these traumas for decades and to ensure that such mistakes are not made in the future and lessons are learned to protect life. Let us do something for all those families who this day want help which, at the moment, does not seem to be forthcoming. That is why I look to the Minister, who is very understanding. She understands the issue very well. She has the heart for it. On behalf of my constituents and others, I hope that today we get the answers and the full compensation we want for them.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
First, I pay tribute to my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has been so diligent over so many years in bringing this issue to the fore. Secondly, I pay tribute to local campaigner Marie Lyon, who lives in my borough and who has done so much to raise the issue of the Primodos scandal over a considerable period of time.
The Primodos pregnancy test was—I understand there has been some dispute about this description—prescribed to Marie over 50 years ago. She spoke about this very eloquently on Sky during its investigation. It was prescribed to her over 50 years ago. As other Members have said, the concentration of female hormones in the pill—she was told to take two pills, 12 hours apart—was the equivalent of taking 80 modern oral contraceptive pills in a single day, or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) mentioned, the equivalent of 26 morning-after pills during a single day. The facts are beyond doubt. Is there anyone in this Chamber or on this earth who believes that that would not cause significant damage to unborn children?
This issue has festered for too long. I understand, from speaking to my hon. Friend the Minister on the many occasions I have buttonholed her to ask her about what progress we can make, that the cases in the court have delayed progress. I take her word on that, but as others have said, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), I believe that this issue has progressed out of the court and it is now long beyond time that we put it to a permanent resolution. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister speaks from the Dispatch Box she can give the House the reassurance that that will indeed be the case, and that we move forward to a scheme of redress and compensation, and get justice for the families affected. I hope that as an early part of that process, she will make haste to contact Marie and other members of the families affected, and meet them to discuss how we can move the issue forward.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, for many years Governments of all colours have failed to address these issues and have perhaps put a carpet over the sins of the fathers, as it were. It is long past time that this was dealt with. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Justice delayed any further is certainly justice denied.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for all her work in raising the issue of Primodos, and Marie Lyon. Like the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), I knew nothing of Primodos when I was first elected in 2019. Shortly after my election, I met Marie with Charlotte Fensome, who joins us today in the Gallery. Charlotte’s brother Steven was a victim of Primodos and Charlotte’s family have been one of the affected families. Many of the words I am going to use today are Charlotte’s words, speaking of what her family has endured because of the advice of a GP to take Primodos. Not long after our meeting in Parliament, I met the Bagley family. Ted Bagley, Steven’s father, is here in the Gallery today and I welcome him to Parliament. This debate is long overdue. It is extremely important that, now legal proceedings are not ongoing, we can discuss what the Government can do for Primodos families.
The afternoon I spent in Wolverhampton North East with Ted and Pat Bagley, Charlotte, and Steven Bagley was a really enjoyable afternoon. I greatly valued the chance of meeting Steven and the Bagley family. It was a home filled with love. I have absolutely no doubt that Steven was aware that he was cherished and loved by his family every day of his life, but I left that home in absolute awe of the efforts to care for Steven made by the two parents in their 80s who were still entirely responsible for him. Let me read Charlotte’s summary of her family life:
“Mum was given Primodos by her GP in Wolverhampton in the early weeks of her pregnancy with my brother Steven…he was born in 1967 with severe brain damage. In many ways he had a difficult life. He had profound learning disabilities and was unable to speak, feed or wash himself. He was incontinent and wheelchair bound. He suffered violent seizures on a daily basis, due to a form of epilepsy that medicine was unable to control and that kept him awake at night. He needed twenty four hour care and my incredible parents cared for him with great difficulty, but with absolute devotion, at home full-time, from the day he was born until the day he died aged 53 years.
We are a close family and we all adored Steven. I know that despite his disabilities, he was happy in life and he felt loved. Seizures aside, he was always smiling and he had the most beautiful, expressive eyes that could tell you exactly how he was feeling. I’m sure that he understood far more than any professional gave him credit. He was a gentle man with a big personality and a devilish sense of humour, who loved being the centre of attention and enjoyed socialising. And although he may not have been able to talk, he was full of fun and made plenty of loud noises to compensate!
My parents were determined to give him a ‘normal life’ from day one, even though society was less accepting of disability…Steven went wherever we went as a family…on the dance floor…at parties…in restaurants…he travelled through Europe by car, flew on aeroplanes and sailed on ships. He loved listening to opera for hours with dad and was very partial to a McDonalds! He appreciated…life and did more in life than many people without his disadvantages.
The hardship has made my parents stronger despite the odds and this year they celebrated 62 years of marriage. To their credit, my own childhood was full of love, enjoyment and opportunity despite their difficult life. My sister Nikki and I were always incredibly proud to have Steven as our brother”.
I am in no doubt of that love for Steven, but the daily grind of looking after someone with such profound disabilities was awful to witness. Charlotte told me during my visit that because Steven’s epilepsy kept him awake at night, his parents had a round-the-clock watch. His mum Pat, in her 80s, sat up overnight with Steven, only sleeping when Steven’s father woke up in the early morning to take over the watch. The Cumberlege report gave Steven’s family some hope that finally help was on the way to support them in caring for Steven. That redress is what I want to speak about today.
Baroness Cumberlege says in her report that hormone pregnancy tests
“are not just a historic issue. We do not doubt the continuing psychological suffering caused by their use - indeed we have witnessed it on the faces and in the words of the families we have met; the sorrow and anger arising from a conviction that lives had been needlessly, and often irreparably, damaged, both physically and mentally; the impact of carrying a relentless sense of burning injustice for decades without resolution; parents of the affected children, deeply anxious about what will happen to their adult child when they are no longer there for them; mothers burdened by guilt at having taken the tablets. The extent of the suffering, endured over decades, must not be underestimated.”
The report calls for help for families to access support, and also for redress. Both are greatly needed, and I hope that the Government will respond positively to this debate. We have heard Members on both sides of the House speak of the impact that Primodos has had on families, and I am especially pleased that several have mentioned that no mother should feel any guilt about having taken it. It is crucial for every mother to know that she—like all of us when we see a GP—took the advice of medical professionals, whom we trust to know better than us and to be acting in our interests.
That redress would not cost a great deal in the overall scheme of Government spending. The Primodos families remaining are now in the low hundreds, not the many thousands. A discretionary award based on need would really help those families. When I asked Charlotte Fensome what the compensation and redress money would have allowed, she came back with several very manageable asks. The first was night sits to relieve her parents, who were in their 80s, of having to sit all night with Steven. The second was a choice of incontinence pads which were not available on the NHS. The third was continuity of domiciliary carers who could get to know Steven and understand his needs. The fourth was more suitable wheelchairs. The fifth was adult centre training to provide ways of occupying Steven, and the sixth was future care. That is the worry that families have. Primodos parents are getting older and older, and many of them worry about leaving behind a child who will be at the mercy of the state; we must give them reassurance. Finally, there was the difficulty in accessing help. The Government could accept that Cumberlege recommendation to give the families a contact point to help them to access the services that they so desperately need.
We have heard from many Members about the drugs fight in the courts, so I will not go over that ground. It was always a David-Goliath fight for the Primodos families, and I know that they feel exhausted. They have waited so long for redress; they have waited so long for help.
Steven sadly died on Boxing Day in 2020. He had been taken into hospital, having contracted covid from a visiting carer. His sister Charlotte, with typical determination, fought her way into the intensive care unit to be with her brother. It is too late for the Bagley family, but their greatest wish is for other families to have the support that they so severely and desperately needed.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the incredibly moving and powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson). I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her very powerful speech, and for the vital work that she has done in this area. Finally, I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on hormone pregnancy tests and Baroness Cumberlege for all that they have been doing to support the hundreds of women and children whose lives have been turned upside down by the use of Primodos from the late 1950s until the 1970s.
This is an extremely important issue for my constituents Sheila and Stuart Harvey, and Sheila’s son Raymond Hyman. I am delighted that they have been able to join us, and are watching and listening to this important debate from the Public Gallery. Sheila was given a Primodos pregnancy test in the late 1960s, completely unaware of the risks. Her son Raymond was born apparently healthy and happy, but Sheila soon became worried when he failed to put on weight. Three months into his life, and after numerous visits to different doctors and hospitals, a team of surgeons at Great Ormond Street Hospital discovered that his heart had failed to develop properly in the womb. Only one ventricle had formed, and the main arteries to his heart were the wrong way round. Raymond underwent six surgical procedures during his childhood, and there were many points at which his parents were worried that he would not survive.
Fortunately, Raymond has survived, but there has of course been an impact on his whole life. His growth and education were affected, and he continues to struggle with his mental health, as well as having to take a huge number of pills every day. I understand that he receives no financial assistance whatsoever, not even to help pay for the prescriptions that he needs to deal with the effects of the drug.
As many Members have said, families and victims such as Raymond deserve justice. The women who used Primodos did nothing wrong. The NHS failed them, and we should not turn our back on them now. The Government have apologised to the families for what they have been through, and I very much welcome that apology, but I understand that the Government have no plans at the moment to offer financial redress to the victims. The principle of providing redress is nothing new and has been applied before in this country. It happened in the case of thalidomide, for which the Department paid around £80 million over 10 years. It happened again with variant CJD, for which the Government allocated a fund of more than £67 million for the victims.
Just like thalidomide victims and those diagnosed with variant CJD, the victims of Primodos need and deserve our support, and not just in financial terms but with practical and non-financial help, too. The Government have so far refused to help, saying their focus is on preventing future harm. It should not be a choice between reducing the risk of future harm, on the one hand, and helping those who have already suffered, on the other. This is not an either/or but an and. We should be doing both.
I know that those watching our proceedings, both from the Gallery and at home, will very much hope for some assurance from the Minister today that a scheme to address this terrible injustice will finally be established. It is trite and has already been said, but the words of William Gladstone are so appropriate today: justice delayed is justice denied.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
It has been an honour and a privilege to sit through this debate. As usual, I will be speaking with no notes, because a lot of what has been said today I would have said myself. I pay tribute to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). We have done much work together over the years.
I pay tribute to Marie Lyon and all the other campaigners, but there is something about this debate. Every time we have it there is unity, conformity, passion and love in the Chamber but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, it disappears into Government and does not come back out. Governments of all descriptions have known about this for years and could have done something about it, but, for some unknown reason, they did not. When I was a Home Office Minister under my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) we did other inquiries together, but we had to battle to get them.
I do not understand why Governments, of all descriptions, do not come to the House to make statements, so we have to UQ them. It is plainly obvious that we will get a statement. We had three statements today, and quite rightly, but the Government would have been UQ-ed if they had not come to the House. Perhaps common sense is prevailing.
When it comes to really serious issues, like Primodos, for some unknown reason the Government, the Department and the Treasury pull down the shutters. It is not one Department, and I fear for the Minister when she stands at the Dispatch Box, because this is way outside the remit of just the Department of Health and Social Care.
We heard earlier that Government lawyers are threatening activists who are trying to get justice for their families, loved ones and others. Many of these campaigners have lost their loved ones, and some of them were victims themselves when they were told to have an abortion or when they had a miscarriage or stillbirth. A lot has changed in society but, in the 1960s and 1970s, it was a really difficult thing for a woman to go to her GP because she thought she was pregnant, especially if she might be a single mum. These couples and single mums were passionately waiting for this pregnancy to make their life fulfilled, and then, a short time later, they were told that perhaps the best thing to do was to abort the child because they would have terrible deformities, or they might go through childbirth. I am lucky enough to have just become a grandfather. I remember being there 33 years ago when my wife punched me on the nose halfway through childbirth. She did not intend to do it; she had no idea what was happening. She was just in a lot of pain and doing that made her feel better. These women were there and then all of a sudden they realised that the disfigurements and abnormalities were there to be seen—or, as we have heard in this debate, not seen until a little later.
We will be having a debate later, which I will be leading, about a situation where babies are born exactly like that and people are being told, “Oh, they’ve got bunions.” They do not have bunions; they have a genetic deformity. But because that deformity is so rare, no one understands it. On this issue, however, the Government, the NHS, the GPs and the drug company knew what they were doing. If the drug company had withdrawn Primodos after a year, when it first started to see this, most of us would have understood that these sorts of situations occur and it should, rightly, have compensated. However, that is not what happened. This went on year after year, with it knowing about this drug.
My point about the word “prescribed” is not just semantics; this drug was not prescribed. A prescription is a prescription. Opening a drawer and giving out a couple of tablets to the lady in front of you is not a prescription; it is a handout. This was done with no information given as to the dangers that we all see today. We have only to buy a packet of paracetamol to see written across the back of it what could happen. These ladies were not given that opportunity. They needed to know whether or not they were pregnant, for whatever situation they were personally in, and the GP then opened the drawer. This was in an NHS surgery, with a GP who was self-employed, as they mostly are, but paid for by the NHS. Those drugs were given not through a pharmacist, but directly from the drug company to the GP to hand out.
Let me conclude on an area that we have not really touched on, and it is something that Governments need to understand. I was a shadow health Minister for four years and I was passionate about this. The damage to our NHS of public understanding of this is so, so bad. The public need to trust the NHS. When they go to their GP, they need to be able to trust that if something needs to be done, it will be done for them and not for the system. Our NHS is being damaged by the way this cover-up continues. Government lawyers have accepted bits of Baroness Cumberlege’s report, but the fundamentals of it, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made sure happened, have been completely ignored. We can run around the head of a pin and say, “It is because there was legal action here and legal action there,” but we should say, “Let’s just do what is right. We have made a mistake, in the Department or in the drug company, and we are going to put it right and put it right today, for those families who are still there and for those families we have lost.” That is the decent thing that this House should do.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We come to the wind-ups. I call Hannah Bardell.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a massive privilege to speak on behalf of my constituent Wilma Ord and those other victims. I declare an interest, as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hormone pregnancy tests, where I work alongside an incredible campaigner, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). She has done the most wonderful job and we have stood side by side.
One of the first cases I ever dealt with as a constituency Member began back in 2015, when Wilma Ord and her daughter Kirsteen came to my constituency surgery. As happened to so many of the victims—our constituents who have been mentioned today—Wilma’s doctor had taken out a pill from his top drawer when she was pregnant and handed it over to her, and she had trusted him. Ultimately, that is what this debate is about. It is about that social contract that our constituents have with us as parliamentarians and with Government, with their doctors and the institutions of the NHS, and with those private companies that are allowed into that space by us and by Government. It is also about the lack of regulation. If the Government continue to refuse to do anything about that, we can only conclude that these have been acts of state-sanctioned harm, because those companies were allowed to operate within the framework of our society and harm was done to our constituents.
Another issue, which has not been touched on an awful lot, is the flawed and failed legal process. I will touch on that, but first I pay tribute to Marie Lyon, who is a remarkable campaigner; to Jason Farrell of Sky News, who has done an incredible job and produced the documentary, “Primodos: The Secret Drug Scandal”, which I encourage Members to watch; to Baroness Cumberlege, for her remarkable work; and of course to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). In my opinion, her campaign on this subject is one of the right hon. Lady’s greatest achievements of her time in office. There may be many things on which we disagree, but we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder on the issue. The Minister should be aware that we are not going anywhere. Whatever happens at the next election, parliamentarians from every party in this place will continue to hold the Government to account on the issue. The scientists Carl Heneghan and Neil Vargesson have been mentioned numerous times; their work has also been crucial.
In 2020 the right hon. Member for Maidenhead was right when she said:
“I almost felt it was sort of women being patted on the head and being told ‘there, there, dear. Don’t worry. You’re imagining it. You don’t know. We know better than you do.’”
I agree wholeheartedly with her, as that is exactly how my constituent was made to feel—she was gaslighted. I have sat with my constituent many times and I sat with her again recently. She lost her husband, George, a year ago. He died not knowing the truth and not seeing justice. It feels very much as if this Government are waiting for people to die rather than taking action, and that is for shame. When I met with Wilma recently we talked a little bit about what the future holds. As other hon. Members have said, our constituents are scared about what will happen next and about what the process and the future will hold.
I want to talk a little about that process. When some of our constituents took their legal action to court, the litigation was cumbersome and expensive and, after the judicial decision this year, the campaigners felt that they had really been done over. I will use my parliamentary privilege, Mr Deputy Speaker, to say that they were done over by a company called Pogust Goodhead, which approached the Primodos campaigners to take over the case. It then got cold feet and decided to drop the claimants and the victims when it did not fancy its chances of winning. To compound that, the company went on to withhold the documents that constituents such as Wilma Ord had presented to the company to pursue the case. That prevented the campaign from being able to find other legal representation and fundamentally meant that the campaign was unsuccessful in court. In my view, that is a hostile and odious movement by any legal firm.
The court citation states:
“Shortly after the service of the defendants’ evidence, PGMBM”—
Pogust Goodhead—
“informed the claimants that they could no longer act for them. They then applied to come off the record… The material placed…in support of the solicitors’ application to come off the record is privileged and has been withheld from me and from the defendants.”
Those are the words of Mrs Justice Yip. She goes on to say that
“some claimants discontinued their claims”,
and talks about the issues around managing a case that has “so many unrepresented litigants”.
In its mission statement, Pogust Goodhead says it is a
“global partnership…working to help individuals, groups, and businesses access fair and tangible justice.”
What a load of absolute nonsense. I appeal to the company directly today, as I am pretty sure the lawyers who worked on the case will be watching: give our constituents their documents back and come clean on exactly how you pulled out of that litigation. And for shame on the Government for going into cahoots with that crowd and leaving our constituents and those victims in that situation. That is state-sponsored and funded action against our constituents and our citizens.
As many people have said, this injustice has gone on for decades, like contaminated blood, Hillsborough and the thalidomide case. It seems to be the order of the day and the order of Government to make people wait for decades, to traumatise and retraumatise them. Baroness Cumberlege’s review clearly took a different view from that of the expert working group and concluded that the manufacturer and the state had an ethical responsibility to find a financial scheme for those harmed.
Finally on my hit list is Bayer, formerly Schering, which said that financial recompense was not appropriate. Last year, its profits were $4.4 billion. It made millions off the back of Primodos and off the back of the damage that was done to our constituents. I am sorry, but this is not good enough for our citizens. It is not good enough from the Minister and it is not good enough from the Government. They need to get off their backsides and do something about this, because we, as parliamentarians, as campaigners and as constituents, are not going away.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate and, as others have done, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for her tireless work on this issue. She not only secured today’s debate, but has been a powerful voice in this campaign for many years. I also wish to put on record my thanks to Marie and all the other campaigners.
The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who is no longer in her place, rightly said that debates such as this show Parliament at its best. I commend the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), and for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood). I also commend the speeches and contributions from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who did some good work in this area as Prime Minister and carries on campaigning for justice, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb), the right hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), for Tatton, and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), who is also not in his place, the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Leigh (James Grundy), for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), for Southend West (Anna Firth), the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and, last but not least, the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), who leads for the SNP. Parliament has spoken with one voice and Parliament has spoken incredibly strongly. We know, as we have heard today, that it has taken decades for those affected by the hormone-based pregnancy test Primodos to be heard let alone be given justice.
Around 1.5 million women in Britain took Primodos in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s before it was finally withdrawn in the late 1970s. Since then, countless women have come forward to tell their stories, alleging impacts on their children ranging from congenital malformations, birth defects to miscarriage and stillbirth. The voices of these women and their families were not heard for decades.
The Cumberlege report, published in 2020 after being commissioned by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, and the Secretary of State for Health, was a watershed moment in this decades-long struggle. It investigated not only Primodos and other hormone pregnancy tests, but sodium valproate and pelvic mesh.
What the Cumberlege report found was damning. It concluded that Primodos caused “avoidable harm” and that the handling of this issue spoke to an institutional failure to take the voices of women seriously. The report made several recommendations relating to Primodos, including but not limited to: a full apology to those affected by Primodos, a patient safety commissioner, a redress agency for those harmed and a taskforce to implement these wide-ranging recommendations.
It is important to welcome the apology that the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made in 2020 following the publication of the Cumberlege review. But, as has been made clear today, this apology was supposed to be the beginning. I am concerned that the Government have so far fully completed only two of the nine recommendations in the Cumberlege review. Four are classed as ongoing and three have been outright rejected.
That glacial progress is just not acceptable, so I will press the Minister on some key points that stood out to me in the Government’s implementation update report of last December, and other developments since. First, in relation to the recommendation for specialist centres for those adversely affected by medications taken during pregnancy, the Department of Health and Social Care has reiterated its view that specialist centres are
“not the most effective way forward.”
Instead, the Government point to NHS England committing to improve care pathways for the children and families affected. The Government’s report states:
“The Teratogen Clinical Development Group has recommended a proposal for regional multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary ‘hub and spoke’ services to sit within specialised neurodisability teams”.
Those services would support the treatment of children and young people exposed to harmful substances such as Primodos. However, the update report simply states that NHSE
“will explore this recommendation further”.
Can the Minister update the House on where that work has got to?
Secondly, as has been highlighted today, there are concerns about the Government’s approach to this issue. There has been a refusal to discuss the redress scheme, in contradiction to the Cumberlege review. There have been reports of refusals to meet with campaigners and parliamentarians, and news of lawyers representing the Government backing efforts to strike out legal action. The list goes on and is becoming more and more concerning. Given the High Court ruling in May, which I know many campaigners were exceptionally disappointed by, what steps are the Government taking to better engage with parliamentarians and campaigners on this issue, and do they have any plans to reconsider their position on redress and implementation?
Theresa Villiers
I am really interested to know what Labour would do if it won the next general election. Would it set up a fund for financial redress?
Andrew Gwynne
There seems to be a bit of a trend for the current Government, and Ministers supporting the current Government, to be looking to Labour to fix some of these problems. We will look very seriously at these issues and the situation that we inherit after the next general election, but I want today’s Minister and her Government to do what they need to do now, not wait until the next general election, which could be 12 months or more away. We need justice and redress now.
This is not a party political issue; it is an issue for each and every one of us in this House—those who have contributed to today’s debate, and the many Members who have not. On both sides of the House, we have to ensure that this historic scandal is comprehensively addressed, and the sooner the better for the victims and families. I sincerely hope that in her response the Minister will agree with all that has been said today, and that we can secure some very long overdue justice for these women and their families.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing the debate and all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in it. We cannot help but be moved by the many cases that have been brought forward this afternoon. This is the first time I have been able to speak either in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall on Primodos because, as many Members have said, there were legal proceedings that ended in May. The claimants had until 11 August to make an application for permission to appeal, which they did not do in that time, so today is my first opportunity since that legal action to speak on it. A second claim is being issued by those who believe that they were harmed by hormone pregnancy tests, against Bayer/Schering. That claim was stayed pending the outcome of the first case and, given that the first claim was struck out by the court, there are now discussions regarding the next steps with that claim. However, I am free to speak today on the issues that we have discussed in the debate.
I want to be clear, as a Minister who is responsible for patient safety, that the patient safety element is the most pressing and important part of my role. Baroness Cumberlege is also a constituent of mine, so hon. Members can be assured that she lobbies outside Parliament as well as inside.
Baroness Cumberlege conducted a review, and the Government have accepted and made progress on most of those recommendations. As has been said, an apology was issued by Government Ministers at the time when they responded to that report. We have appointed an independent Patient Safety Commissioner, and Henrietta Hughes is doing an outstanding job holding the Government to account.
I will touch on the issues around redress in just a moment. We have set up the mesh centres for those affected by pelvic mesh; I meet regularly with those female campaigners to hear their feedback on the effectiveness of those centres, and there is work going on to review that. The MHRA itself is revising its practice as a result of Baroness Cumberlege’s report.
Dame Angela Eagle
I think the Minister for her generosity in giving way, but this sounds like a typical civil service-drafted speech, if I may say so, mentioning everything but the issue we are talking about. We are not talking about mesh; we are talking about Primodos, and we want to hear about redress. Can she now please address those points?
Maria Caulfield
I can show the hon. Lady my remarks—they are on the back of this paper, and I have been writing them down during this debate. I am only two minutes into my speech and I am addressing some of the points that were made. I will of course come on to Primodos as well.
It is important to recognise that we did take those issues in Baroness Cumberlege’s review seriously. We could not look at the issue around Primodos at that time because of the legal case, which I have touched on, but there have been some reviews. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) was here just before this debate. In his time as Minister for Life Sciences, he took the campaigns and the evidence around Primodos so seriously that he set up the expert review in 2014 to look at the evidence that was in place. I hear very loudly this afternoon some concerns about that expert working group and that maybe evidence was either misinterpreted or not looked at, but that expert working group did look at the evidence at that time and also issued a public call for evidence.
Sir Mike Penning
The so-called expert group changed the remit that it was given, with no recourse, as I understand it, to any Minister for permission to do so. It changed the terms of what it was supposed to look at, which is not what it was asked to do in the first place.
Maria Caulfield
I hear my right hon. Friend and, as I said, I will come on to that specifically towards the end of my remarks.
There were further evidence reviews. Hon. Members have touched on the evidence from Heneghan et al., and from Brown et al. in 2018. Those were looked at, and again there was no evidence of causality found in those reviews.
Maria Caulfield
I will, but I need to make some progress on addressing the points made.
Hannah Bardell
Causality is one of the key issues here, because it is very difficult to prove. The only way it can be proven is if those tests were done on pregnant women, and we all know that would be utterly ridiculous and absurd. However, we do know that there was association, and the bar has been set so high that it has become impossible for people to get justice. That responsibility lies at the door of the Government. Thalidomide campaigners were able to settle with the company. We need to look at how we can make that happen for Primodos campaigners, but the Government also need to look at lowering the bar.
Maria Caulfield
I take the hon. Lady’s point that causality is a high bar. I am just going through the fact that there have been a number of reviews of the evidence so far. Baroness Cumberlege, when she set out the remit for her review, also stated from the outset that she would not be able to touch on causality for many of those reasons. There have been a number of reviews of the evidence, but I hear from right hon. and hon. Members some concerns that those reviews still have not got to the bottom of the issues that the families and those affected by Primodos feel that they have faced.
On the next steps, I have heard hon. Members. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was clear about the drug being taken even after evidence had emerged. I heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) about the effect on her constituent Helen and her family. I heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) about his experience in Government and why these things often take so long. And, of course, I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who set up the Cumberlege review in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) has lobbied me hard outside this place on behalf of his constituent Marie Lyon and the many others who have been affected.
Now that we are in between the first and—potentially—second court cases, I am keen to meet and get to the bottom of right hon. and hon. Members’ concerns.
Mrs May
I wonder whether the Minister might clarify one point about the second court case. The Government were a party to the first court case; that was the argument that they used for being unable to come to a decision. Are the Government a party to the second court case? If not, the second court case seems to me irrelevant.
Maria Caulfield
I will come to that in a minute. We are in between cases, and I want to make progress while we do not have a live case. Discussions are ongoing at the moment.
I am the Minister with responsibility for patient safety, and on this matter, I, rather than officials, wrote my speech. We all know that tragic events and accidents can happen, but I am weary of meeting families up and down the country who are victims of the injustice in the health service at the moment. I and the Secretary of State met the families at the Countess of Chester Hospital only last week. I met the families from Tees, Esk and Wear valleys, whose young children died by suicide. I met, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the families whose children died in east Kent, where there was an inquiry. I met Janet and Emma, the sodium valproate campaigners from In-FACT—the Independent Fetal Anti-convulsant Trust—and the women who lead the mesh campaign. I hear day in, day out about the injustice that many have to face, and about the fight to get answers to basic questions when things go wrong.
I am very happy to say from the Dispatch Box that I will meet the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Bolton South East, and other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I am very happy to commit to a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and with Marie Lyon, as well as with any other families who wish to meet, to discuss the Primodos case. If there are concerns that evidence was left out or not scrutinised, or that evidence in previous reviews is disputed, I am very happy to look again at that evidence and to leave no stone unturned until we absolutely get to the facts of the matter.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) mentioned the letter that has gone out to those taking part in court cases. I do not want people to be in a position where they feel that they cannot get justice simply because they cannot afford to, so I commit to looking at that matter and addressing the points that he made as soon as I get to the Department.
I do not want to come back to the Dispatch Box to discuss the issues around Primodos on an ongoing basis. If patients feel that there has been an injustice, and that there is evidence to support that, I am very happy to look at it again. There may be future court cases, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, but we are at a point where we can look at that now.
Mrs May
I am sorry; I did not say that there may be future court cases. The Minister herself referred to a second court case, and I asked a simple question about whether the Government would be a party to that case. I am grateful, and I am sure that the families will be grateful, that the Minister has opened the door to sitting down with and hearing directly from the families and campaigners. She says that she is prepared to look at any evidence that comes forward. The Cumberlege review is the evidence; it sets it out very clearly. That is all the Government need.
Maria Caulfield
To be specific on that point, the Government are involved in a second claim. We are not sure whether that claim will go forward—discussions about that are ongoing. As the appeal timed out on 11 August, I am happy to commit today to looking at the evidence and the Cumberlege review. Baroness Cumberlege is my constituent, and I am sure she will be pushing me for that.
Ed Davey
To follow on from the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the Cumberlege review has concluded. There are recommendations. Is the Minister saying from the Dispatch Box that the Government are not accepting those recommendations? We want to hear that they are going to implement those recommendations, not hear more evidence—implement them!
Maria Caulfield
Finger pointing is not exactly effective. As I set out at the beginning of my remarks, we have accepted the majority of those recommendations. We could not accept the Primodos ones while there was an ongoing court case. I have given my commitment from the Dispatch Box to review the outstanding recommendations in relation to Primodos, because I want to get to the bottom of this once and for all and provide justice for the families. I have heard from Members across the House about their concerns and the outstanding recommendations of the Cumberlege review, and my commitment is to look at those now.
Hannah Bardell
It seems to me that we are caught up in a quagmire of bureaucracy. We have had the Cumberlege review. We know what the results are. The Government said incessantly that they would not address the Primodos matter because of the court case. We now know that the court case was, in some respects, flawed, because the complainants and victims were not able to take their case forward as their information was withheld by the legal firm. As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) said, they are now being treated in a hostile manner by the Government by being told that they will be sued for over £10 million if they take another case forward. That is an utterly preposterous situation. If the Minister really wants to get to the bottom of it, she needs to implement fully the Cumberlege review and ignore the nonsense that has gone on in the courts.
Maria Caulfield
I do not want to test your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that I am over time, but I have made the commitment to review the Cumberlege recommendations for Primodos patients. For those who have been affected by sodium valproate and mesh, we are making huge progress. Only this week, we introduced a statutory instrument so that sodium valproate can only be dispensed in the manufacturer’s original packaging. We have the pregnancy prevention programme, which is drastically reducing the number of babies born to those taking sodium valproate. We are installing the registry, so that women on sodium valproate are better cared for and not taking that medication. Now that 11 August has passed and the claim was not followed up, I am looking at the Primodos recommendations as well. My commitment is to come back to the House and update Members on the progress on those matters.
Yasmin Qureshi
First, I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate. In particular, I pay tribute to the vice-chair of the APPG on hormone pregnancy tests, the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell).
The many interventions on the Minister from my colleagues show that we are very unhappy about what she proposes and what the Government seem to want to do about this. We want to meet the Minister, but not in six months or three months; we would like to have a meeting in the next week or so.
Yasmin Qureshi
We want to sit down with the Minister, and we want her to say to us, “This is what we are going to do about the Primodos case.” We do not want the Minister to tell us the problems. We want a system of redress right now—that is what we want from the Minister—and I hope that when we have that meeting, she and her officials will present to us the practical action they are going to take so that all the people who have been suffering for decades and decades actually get justice. We want her to tell us not about what has happened before or about the court cases, but about the actions she will take based on what the Cumberlege review said. [Interruption.] The Minister is muttering, but in the past it has sometimes taken us months and months to get a meeting with Ministers. I am glad that she has reassured us, and I hope that we will get a meeting in the next couple of weeks and that her and her officials will present a concrete plan for how to get redress for the victims. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I know that, strictly speaking, the hon. Lady has only two minutes, but these are important issues. If she wishes to give way to the Minister, she may.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am sorry; I did not realise the Minister was asking to intervene. I give way.
Maria Caulfield
I just wanted to reiterate that I have pledged to meet the APPG and all its members. I have also pledged to look at the recommendations specifically in relation to Primodos. I think it is important to meet the families and the APPG, so that we can make progress on this issue.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the Minister for that intervention. I look forward to meeting her and her officials, and to a great scheme that will help the victims of Primodos. I remind her that if we do not get our meeting, or if we do not get a satisfactory result, we will be back again—all of us. We have been fighting for the past 10 or 12 years, and we will continue to fight this campaign, because the whole House is united behind it. I hope we will get positive news at our next meeting.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that children were born with serious deformities due to the hormone pregnancy test drug Primodos, which was taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975; further notes that official warnings were not issued about Primodos until eight years after the first reports indicated possible dangers; observes that the report by the Commission on Human Medicines’ Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests in 2017 was inconsistent with other academic reports; notes that the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, First do no harm, found that Primodos caused avoidable harm; further notes that the Government has refused to acknowledge the recommendations by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review relating to Primodos families; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations in the Independent Medicines and Medica al Devices Safety Review and to set up a redress fund for families affected by Primodos.
Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
We now come to the debate on funding for the prevention of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, or FOP for short. I call Sir Mike Penning to move the motion.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for the prevention of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva.
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased you have pronounced it rather than me; from now on, perhaps we will just use FOP, which is what most people—including the families—call it, but the scientists do not.
FOP is a genetic condition; it is not an illness or a disease, as it is called all too often. It is very rare—one in a million. In this country, about 70 people alive have FOP, including about 30 young people and children. If we replicate that around the world, it is a very rare condition. The condition is probably the biggest nightmare for any parent, or anybody who loves a child.
Let me give an example: I played rugby, and I bruised very regularly. I stopped playing fairly recently, but when I did play rugby, I would bruise. For those who have FOP, there is a good chance that that bruise will turn to bone—skeletally, it will turn to bone. Most of us want our young children to be inoculated, and we have been through an inoculation process during covid, which I was very much involved with, but if someone with FOP has an injection there is a good chance that that trauma will turn to bone. I have circulated privately to the Minister, Mr Deputy Speaker and others some photographs of what that trauma can end up like and does end up like.
I got involved in this issue when a couple came to see me in my constituency and said, “Our daughter has FOP”—as a dyslexic person, I cannot say it to this day, although I have practised and practised. I had no idea what they were talking about. It is a bit like the previous debate: when we first heard about Primodos and the problems with it, most of us in this room had never heard of it. FOP is much rarer than the conditions suffered by the victims of Primodos that we have been talking about, or of mesh, valproate or any of those things, but the effects on those individuals and their families and loved ones are profound.
My constituent said to me that, as a mum, she looked at her baby and thought there was something wrong with her toes. The initial diagnosis from most paediatricians would be bunions—bunions on a new-born baby. My wife has bunions, but it is nothing to do with what she was born with; it is to do with the quality of the shoes she wore as a young lady. She will not mind me saying that, because we have discussed this case before. It is only sometimes, when people get in front of the right expert, that they get the diagnosis for what is a completely incurable, progressive condition and find out what they have. That is what happened with my constituents. There are three consultants in this country who have that capability, and they were lucky that they got in front of one. I pay tribute to the Portland Hospital where the diagnosis took place.
What does this mean for a young person? There are young people in the Gallery this afternoon who have the condition. I think the little ’un has gone home now because she was rather tired, and she helped me deliver a letter to the Prime Minister at No. 10 earlier today. What does it mean for them? It means that their whole life is different. Do we want to wrap our children up in cotton wool? No, of course we do not. Even if they have FOP, do we want to wrap them up in cotton wool? No, we do not, but they have to be extremely careful about inoculations, bruising, sport, and rough and tumble.
My constituents are very lucky. I have a very forward-thinking planning department in my local authority, which used the delegated powers it has to grant planning permission on the green belt—the green belt that I fight to protect in my constituency—so a specialist house could be built for Lexi, and she has the facilities where she can have the safe upbringing she needs. Lots of people were very worried about permission being given in that way because the condition is so rare, and I had people saying to me, “Are you really sure this baby’s got this condition, and is this not just circumventing the planning rules?”. It was only when I circulated some of the photographs, which many colleagues in the House have, that people said to me, “Okay, we get it,” and two of them actually said, “We’re really sorry. We get it.”
Because the condition is very often not visual in the early stages, there is no understanding of it. It is a bit like a mental health condition. We have much better ideas about mental health these days, but when we walk up to someone, we do not know whether they have such a condition. If people go up to Lexi today, they would not know that she has FOP, but they will do in the next few years, when it will become pretty obvious. The interesting thing about FOP is that there is no set plan or rule for it. In some cases it progresses very fast, the bone grows very quickly and the effects on the skeleton, movement and mobility are very quick, but in others there are short bursts of it, while sometimes there is nothing for years and then it will progress again.
Given the reason for this debate—and I apologise to the Minister, to whom I have spoken privately about this—I did not want the Minister for Health and Secondary Care on the Front Bench. I wanted the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation on the Front Bench. It is nothing personal, but this is not an NHS issue. It is a condition that needs scientific expertise in research and trials, which is in the Science Minister’s portfolio. I understand why, as soon as we start talking about anything to do with health, the Health Department goes, “That’s ours,” but on this particular occasion, it is not.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Can I just say that I concur with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about research and health research? There is a concern about how it is being handled.
Sir Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.
Earlier, we had a short statement on Horizon, which was excellent in that the Science Minister was on the Bench, and when I asked the Secretary of State a few questions about FOP, he agreed to meet us in short time. The great news is that we will meet the Science Minister. The key to what was announced earlier is that work was being done before covid—and there is work on FOP being done around the world—and there was funding from Horizon for trials on FOP. The big issue was that covid interrupted the trials, not our leaving the EU. I am sure some colleagues will say, “Ah, that’s what it’s all about.” No, it was nothing to do with that; it was covid that affected it. I put that on the record straightaway, and we now have the great situation that Horizon is back on stream.
One of the reasons I wanted to see the Science Minister on the Front Bench was to ask him this question. Perhaps colleagues in his office can elaborate on this before I meet him. The trials were halted because of covid, but have we got to start from scratch again or can we move on with those trials? I am old-fashioned and I used to be called a Eurosceptic, but we are now out of the European Union, so that is great. One of the things that was said is, “Well, you don’t want to co-operate with Europe,” but of course we want to co-operate with Europe. The announcement today on Horizon is a classic example, and the classic example of why we have to collaborate not just with Europe but with America and other parts of the world is that this condition is so rare and we could not do trials here. The scientists in America have a much bigger base on which they are able to do trials, and we need to learn from them and they need to learn from us.
So it looks sensible that we will be back in the European trials, but I am petrified about whether we will have to wait for Horizon to announce bidding on a certain part of the scientific research, and then wait a couple of years for that decision to be made. That is what tends to happen with these projects, but we are already in the middle of the project.
In trying to work out the best route forward—I am not a scientist; I am looking at this as a dad—we need two things. Research is going on into how we prevent the progression of FOP in the bone structure when there are traumas, and whether there is something early on that we can turn off. Is there research out there that can predict that? At the moment there is not, I understand. We have two situations. Can we in some way look at the future and at anybody who, family-wise or genetically, is likely to get this condition? Secondly, if a child has got it, how can we slow down progression? The families here with me today, and those in FOP Friends, would argue that they have this condition so they need help and research now, but we also need research to prevent what is going on genetically.
It also worries me how we need to spread knowledge about FOP around the world, not just in this country. In some parts of the world, almost no FOP babies are born. Just on a law of averages, that is not possible, and it has already been proven that there is no cultural link. Some genetic conditions are linked to what part of the world someone might have come from, but apparently they have already done research on FOP, and that is not the case. What is happening in parts of the world where babies are not born deformed and people do not instantly know. That sort of research desperately needs to be done. Lots of work is being done in Boston and around the world, but it is key that we are back as an associate of Horizon. Can we start not from scratch but halfway through and where we were before covid hit the project?
In a perfect world, we in this Chamber, and the families, would like to be able to press a button, perhaps give a tablet, and stop this progression. It is the most awful thing to be sitting there, waiting for your child to perhaps have a bump, a bruise or a progression. As a group, FOP Friends make sure that everybody talks to everybody. It is better learning from other people who are in the same situation and not having to reinvent the wheel every five minutes. As I said earlier, people are desperate not to wrap their child in cotton wool, and to give them as much of a normal life as possible. Earlier I was talking to the chair of FOP Friends. He was playing badminton with his son who has got FOP, and I think he loses on a regular basis. There are things that can be done, but the problem with the condition is that it is not the same in every child. It will be different in every child, and it is different in its progression.
That is why this debate is so important, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it. It is not a normal sort of debate. We have had a debate in Westminster Hall on this issue, which has such a dramatic effect on the lives, futures, aspirations and dreams of those families whose lives are affected by FOP. I thought, and my colleagues thought—some of them could not be here today—that we should bring this subject to the Floor of the House, so that we could find out where this research is going.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for bringing this debate to the Chamber and for all the work he has been doing to raise these important issues within Parliament. It was good to hear such a fulsome and good description of the condition and how people are affected by FOP. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions, I am glad to be able to take part in this debate to highlight the issues facing people with FOP.
We have heard from the right hon. Member about just how debilitating this condition is. Usually caused by a gene mutation, FOP is the only known condition where the body changes one organ to another. Bone forms in muscles, tendons and other connective tissues, progressively and irreversibly restricting movement. This severely limits the ability of those affected to perform the most basic tasks of daily life. Children with FOP lose their independence just at the point they should be gaining it. Many of the issues affecting families of children with FOP are experienced by other people across the rare disease communities, including long diagnostic odysseys.
Sir Mike Penning
I apologise for interrupting so early in the hon. Lady’s speech; she is generous in giving way. One of the bits that I think I missed in my speech is that FOP is not a disease; it is actually a genetic condition. For the families, that is really important. Americans talk about FOP as a disease rather than a condition, but really and truly it is a genetic condition that someone is born with, rather than something that someone would contract.
Liz Twist
I thank the right hon. Member for making that clear. He is right that it is important for the families. Sometimes in this House—even in our APPGs—we use a kind of shorthand about issues to bring people together. FOP is indeed, as he said, a genetic condition.
The rare disease community has some issues in common, including those long diagnostic odysseys. How long do people have to wait for their condition—I will use that term—to be recognised? There is a lack of clinical awareness with many of these conditions and limited treatment options for far too many people.
FOP, as the right hon. Member has said, is perhaps one of the rarest and most disabling of these conditions, with no treatment or cure. Within the rare conditions community, a diagnostic odyssey, as he will know, refers to a common scenario in which delays to accessing the right support and the right treatment—where it exists—can cause irreversible deterioration of an individual’s condition. While there is no treatment for FOP, repeated investigations, such as biopsies, can trigger the condition’s progression. That can be triggered by trauma, too. Furthermore, delayed diagnosis prevents parents from taking action to keep their children safe from situations and activities that could trigger injuries and flare-ups.
Unfortunately, a diagnostic odyssey is the norm for many children with FOP. Getting a diagnosis takes one and a half years on average, and more than half of people with FOP get the wrong diagnosis in the first instance, as we have heard. Despite genetic tests being available, FOP is not included in the national genomic test directory for rare and inherited conditions. Can the Minister explain why it is not included in that directory? What plans do the Government have to change that position?
The real hope for FOP, as we have heard, is new research. Like much of the research into rare conditions, it is likely to have far-reaching benefits for more common illnesses, such as osteoporosis, childhood brain cancer and heart disease. At the moment, the Government are overseeing a decline in research and international life science competitiveness, with commercial clinical trial activity in the NHS declining over recent years. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead about the STOPFOP trial, which is supported by funding from the European Union’s Innovative Medicines Initiative as part of Horizon 2020. Is it not ironic that we are discussing this on the day we have heard that we are now in the Horizon programme? Thank goodness we are; it is an important move. However, there have been two years of wasted opportunities and uncertainty for people going through trials and research, such as people with FOP.
I understand that researchers would have to apply for new funding from the scheme to carry on with the STOPFOP trial. How will the Government ensure that funding continues to be available to allow the trials to continue, and to ensure real progress in diagnosing and treating FOP?
As the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said, time really is of the essence if we are not to lose the benefit of the work already done and if we are to give those with FOP, and those who may be born with the condition in future, the best chance of the earliest possible diagnosis and treatment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). I thank them for their contributions, particularly the right hon. Gentleman for setting the scene.
FOP is an extremely rare condition, but it is important that the matter is aired in the Chamber and the right hon. Gentleman has done that well. He is probably right that the relevant Minister is not here. That is no disrespect to the Minister who is here—we know that he is an honourable person, who will respond positively within his remit. If another Minister needs to take the matter on board, we look to the Minister who is here to make the case persuasively to them, and hopefully we will get a response.
When the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead asked me whether I would come along to support him, I automatically said that I would, because the debate is about a health issue, health is one of my portfolios and I wanted to understand the condition. I have always had a particular interest in rare diseases. Long before I came here, I was a member of the Northern Ireland association for rare diseases. I am therefore particularly interested in the subject.
I will be honest: I knew little about FOP. I had to research it, and the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead gave me some pointers. It was so interesting to read about it and to learn how rare it is and how little we know about it. FOP is an exceptionally rare genetic condition, where soft tissue develops into bone, creating a second skeleton. The right hon. Gentleman illustrated the condition clearly when he described the bruise, the bump, the jag or the discomfort. Around 70 known individuals are diagnosed in the UK, and the disorder has been described as impacting “one in a million.” That gives an idea of the rarity of the condition.
The House is tasked with highlighting the issue and raising awareness, and I hope that the debate will do that. As far as I am aware, there are only two known cases in Northern Ireland, and they are twin sisters. I do not have their permission to name them, and I would not do that, but there has been public information about the case.
Sir Mike Penning
My hon. Friend has touched on the really important point of the lack of diagnosis. If we know that one in a million children will be born with it, the calculation for the world population is pretty obvious. We are nowhere near identifying the numbers that should be out there. In my constituency and in any other hon. Member’s constituency, there are probably children who have been born with the condition. However, the length of time it takes to get a diagnosis—because the test is not part of the programme—is the most important thing. The condition can be tested for if there is a will.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman has made a simple request about diagnosis. Perhaps awareness can be raised of the simple test, which it is so important to do. I understand that the twins in Northern Ireland are rightly keen to raise awareness of the issue.
Such rare diseases are often ignored. Most people—including me before this debate—have little or no idea what it is or, more importantly, what we can do to raise awareness. But today we can use our position as MPs to highlight the issue, with the co-operation of the Minister and the shadow Minister. I cannot for a moment imagine what it must be like to grow up with a condition about which there is little or no information, not to mention what it would have been like when the twins were children, when there was no cure or treatment for the condition.
Early and correct diagnosis is key to changing the life of someone suffering with FOP, as the right hon. Gentleman said. This debate is a request for hope and for progress for our constituents. The purpose of this debate is funding, with the hope of a potential trial of the existing drug Saracatinib, originally developed by AstraZeneza as a cancer drug. The underlying issue is that if the STOPFOP trial is not completed, the money spent on it will be wasted. Given the progress of trials and the advancement in medication, it is right that every effort should be made to try to find that money to ensure that the investigation into that treatment takes place.
Sir Mike Penning
Like all clinical trials and all things in health, there are other things the trial could help with. I am not a scientist, but it has been put to me that while we are looking at clinical trials into FOP, there may be help for osteoporosis—brittle bones—and skeletal damage, particularly that suffered by the military. Even though we are talking about a tiny percentage of the population with FOP, the population with brittle bones is huge. It seems that there is very little cure for it apart from taking calcium tablets. If we get the principle right on what is causing the bone growth, perhaps the research can be extended past FOP and we can help millions of people in other areas.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whenever trials take place there are always benefits, although perhaps not the intended ones. None the less, the focus can be larger, whether it be brittle bones or whatever. What was originally a cancer drug has been found to be beneficial to those with FOP.
As initial funding for the trial is running out, the main asks are to ensure that additional funding is allocated, while ensuring that secured funding extends to allow the trial to include children, especially the screening of new-born infants—as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. Many have said that early and correct diagnosis is key to changing the life of someone with FOP, so I cannot imagine how the trial could not extend to newborns and extremely young children.
Raising awareness is how we will improve treatment for the condition. I have been made aware that there are only three knowledgeable FOP clinicians in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That leaves patients often finding themselves treated by doctors with little or no FOP knowledge, which is rather disappointing, but focuses attention on those three clinicians. Like other conditions, patients must battle to be heard. Being aware of what to look out for is crucial: shortened or turned-out toes in young children raise concern, but if combined with tumour-like swellings, FOP is almost certain. It has also been raised that many patients are given biopsies and misdiagnosed with cancer. Others have had limb amputations, which perhaps was not the right way forward, but a response to not being quite sure what the problem is.
Having better access to a wider pool of experts would make a huge difference in diagnosing and treating people correctly. The charity FOP Friends, based in Oxford, is fantastic at supporting families. I have also seen some of the social media pages of parents of children who have FOP. Their work is absolutely incredible.
Sir Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—thank goodness we have plenty of time to debate this issue. As he alluded to, there was a petition on social media, which was signed by well over 100,000 people. The Government’s response—I should have mentioned this to the Minister—is that they have funded research into FOP, but I am afraid that does not appear to be the case. They have funded research into rare diseases, not FOP. That is probably crucial when it comes to the public’s belief in what we do in this place.
Jim Shannon
The Minister took note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, so I have no doubt that there will be a response. The Minister has a genuine interest in the subject and I hope we will all be encouraged by what will have been said.
The parents are the main drivers of the campaign and the effort going into it is truly incredible. Many different people are making an effort with FOP Friends, whether the families, clinicians, those involved in clinical trials, ourselves as Members of Parliament, and, ultimately, the shadow Minister and the Minister.
To conclude, I thank the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead again for raising this issue with us today. He speaks so highly of his constituents. He does it all the time, by the way, but he did it again today. He has indicated to me that he is not running for Parliament again. We will miss his constant and compassionate commitment, interventions and speeches in this Chamber. He does not always do what his party wants him to do, but he always does what is right and that is what I admire about him as an individual.
It is important that we do all we can to help those with this condition to cope. We must do more to fund research into this trial. I sincerely look forward to hearing about developments in the future. To give those with FOP a better quality of life just like the rest of us, we need the Government and the Minister, from whatever Department, to help deliver just that.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing the debate. I apologise if I stumble between illnesses, diseases and genomics; this is not my specialist subject.
Rare illnesses are collectively widespread. There are thousands of different rare diseases and illnesses, and each one can require highly specialised treatment. That means that people living with them can face the prospect of a long “diagnostic odyssey” before they are accurately diagnosed and able to access treatment. The various aspects of their treatment and care also often lack co-ordination. It is vital that we continue to strive for improvement and ensure that all those living with a rare disease get the right diagnosis faster, and can access co-ordinated care and specialist treatment.
The “UK Rare Diseases Framework” was co-produced by the UK Government and the devolved nations. It sets out the key priorities for the next five years for improving the lives of people living with rare diseases. Each nation committed to producing their own action plan based on how those key priorities will be implemented. The Scottish Government understand the importance of the framework and are committed to implementing the 51 commitments outlined within it. They also welcome the progress that has been made in Scotland in delivering genomic medicine and empowering patients through the UK’s rare diseases forum.
In December 2022, the Scottish Government published their “Rare Disease Action Plan”, which was developed through significant engagement with the rare disease community. Through their combined efforts, the Scottish Government will ensure that they are putting those living with a rare disease at the heart of policymaking, ensuring this meets the needs of the rare disease community in Scotland while reaping the benefits of a four-nation approach. The Scottish Government’s action plan sets out four key themes to implement the UK rare disease framework: ensuring patients get the right diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better co-ordination of care; and improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. The Scottish Government remain fully committed to ensuring that there is continual improvement in supplying patient-centric care that is safe and effective for those living with a rare disease.
The genomic medicine landscape is developing rapidly. In the last five years we have seen the implementation of impactful genetic testing for a variety of conditions, which has helped to inform patient treatment, allowing patients to receive the right treatment at the right time. Pathogen genomics is also helping to deliver “precision public health” by guiding investigations of infection outbreaks, antimicrobial stewardship, better-targeted disease control, and infection surveillance.
The Scottish Government published “Genomics in Scotland: Building our Future” in March this year. The Scottish Government’s strategic intent is to deliver an equitable, person-centred, population-based genomics service and infrastructure for Scotland. This publication is the first in a series, setting out the Scottish Government’s strategic vision for Scotland’s genomics future. They will publish a series of documents in the future, explaining how they will deliver genetic services that will allow Scotland not only to treat disease but to prevent ill health before the prevalence of symptoms. Scottish physicians and scientists have been actively participating in the advancement of genomic medicine over the past three decades. Scotland has a great foundation to build on within the NHS laboratory network, but it is important that these laboratories are fit for the future, as we know that genomic medicine is on a steep trajectory.
Achieving the Scottish Government’s ambition of having a genomics ecosystem with the infrastructure to support it will require investment in rapidly evolving technologies, skills and facilities. The Scottish Government will be innovative and adaptive to change, working collaboratively through the triple helix approach with academia, industry and the public sector to harness the opportunities at their disposal and deliver an integrated approach to genomics across Scotland. Their genomics strategy aligns with their rare disease action plan, and they will engage with the Rare Disease Implementation Board, as well as key rare disease organisations such as Genetic Alliance UK, to ensure that the strategy is informed by those who will benefit most.
While I see the intent and acknowledge the money being spent, it is clear that far more money is required to fund the research that is needed. The UK Government have overspent tens of billions of pounds on the Ministry of Defence, Crossrail and HS2—and, ironically, PPE during a health crisis—which shows that the money is there, but it must be spent wisely. In Scotland, following the 2022-23 emergency budget review, genomics was allocated a revised budget of £5 million. Through the funding allocated so far in 2022-23, the Scottish Government have established the Scottish Strategic Network for Genomic Medicine and funded a genomics transformation team within the NHS National Services Division, led by a consultant clinical scientist and supported by clinical leads for rare disease and cancer.
Genomic medicine is an integral part of precision medicine and precision health. It can lead to earlier and more precise diagnoses, as well as more targeted prevention and management of diseases. Over the next five years, the genomics landscape in Scotland will be transformed as we work to ensure that patients have equitable access to timely, personalised and high-quality genomic medicine for a range of conditions, including FOP.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who secured it and who has tirelessly campaigned on this issue with his constituents and the charity FOP Friends, who I understand have joined us today in the Public Gallery. I pay tribute to the families’ tenacity and bravery in raising the profile of this rare condition, and in continuing to do so. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for being here this afternoon.
One of the great privileges of our role here is learning from the experience—sometimes the very difficult and harrowing experience—of our constituents, and learning from them about subjects that we might not ordinarily have come across. I have certainly learnt a great deal from preparing for the debate, and also this afternoon. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead for helping me to understand the impact of this condition, which he has done so eloquently and powerfully today on their behalf. I know that he worked with my office and other offices to ensure that all of us were well informed.
As we have heard, this is an ultra-rare condition, affecting only one person in 1 million, and there is currently no cure. However, we also know that what action can be taken is effective, both in diagnosis—which is crucial—and in care, and that people can some people can enjoy have good general health and reach old age, which I have been told is now over 60. It is my birthday this week, so that is quite close. I do not think it is old age, but they can certainly live for quite some time.
Early diagnosis is vital to managing the progression of FOP, and the average age of diagnosis, as I understand it, is around eight years old—as we have heard, the early signs include under-turned big toes—but greater awareness would mean earlier diagnosis for children with FOP. Families who understand that something is not quite right would be comforted to have that diagnosis. As we know, young children are not particularly careful or robust and, although we understand the dangers of immunisations into muscle, it would be a positive step forward for FOP.
Fifty-two per cent of people with FOP initially receive an incorrect diagnosis, creating more delays in care, with swellings due to flare-ups often being misdiagnosed as cancer or other diseases, which leads to unnecessary and potentially harmful procedures.
Sir Mike Penning
There have been limb amputations, and the damage that does to the muscle means it almost invariably turns into bone. Surgeons do not amputate a limb for the sake of it, and with the best will in the world, amputation is often more damaging and does not help the patient; if anything, it makes it worse.
Karin Smyth
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification about that, which adds to the trauma that people are living with.
A genetic test can confirm the diagnosis, and we expect to hear whether the Minister has made any assessment about including the test in the national genomic test directory for rare and inherited diseases. Given the commitment in the rare diseases action plan, it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what discussions he has had on new-born screening for FOP and the inclusion of digital education resources relating to FOP. As we have heard, there are only three knowledgeable clinicians in the UK. Access to information and guidance on FOP would make a huge difference for all those living with this condition.
Accepting that the Minister and I are the B team, and scientists would have been preferable, it is important that there is good care to help people with the condition who may be immobilised at a fairly young age. Care for FOP and other rare diseases is specialist and complex, and it reaches across the health and social care systems. I am sure I speak for him when I say that we are both very pleased to talk about the impact on the wider health service. We know that we are very short of care staff more generally, which is not helpful for people who need care or their families. Those living with this condition are vulnerable to some of the wider issues in the care service.
More generally, it would be helpful if the Government could outline more support in the workforce plan, including in social care. Without an increase in the number of care workers, those living with rare diseases such as FOP will struggle to get the care they need. That is why we think it should happen, and it would be helpful to hear what steps the Government are taking to support the care workforce for people living with this condition.
We have heard that research is the greatest hope for those living with this condition, and the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead has argued passionately, as have others, for the need to continue funding the STOPFOP trial. The amount of money raised by FOP Friends and the progress that has been made are an incredible achievement. We know that research into FOP will have benefits and implications for more common illnesses, such as osteoporosis, childhood brain cancer and heart disease.
Obviously, we are all pleased to hear that, after a very difficult and uncertain two years of frankly unnecessary negotiations—which have halted or delayed collaboration and research—we will now be involved in the Horizon programme, which will be crucial to making progress in this area. A key commitment in the rare diseases action plan is to improve the Be Part of Research platform to make it easier for people living with rare diseases to participate in research, should they choose to do so. Again, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing to support those who wish to take part in the trial.
As we have heard, FOP can be devastating. The families want to live in good health and live their best life with their loved ones. I give my heartfelt commendation to those living with this condition and their families. I am pleased that people have come here today and I am sure that that visit to Downing Street was a really positive. The fact that we are debating this issue today is a testament to their hard work and commitment.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for securing this important debate on FOP and for his powerful and compelling contribution. As he eloquently and articulately set out, FOP is an incredibly rare and truly devastating condition. He is a champion for people living with it and for their families, and I thank him for that. It is impossible not to be moved when reading about this currently incurable condition and when seeing pictures such as those he sent me about it. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that hearing about Lexi Robins and her parents, Alex and David, greatly moved me. I can only imagine what they must be going through, and I send my heartfelt sympathies to them and their entire family.
I also wish to express my admiration for Chris and Helen Bedford-Gay, who established the charity FOP Friends, after their son, Oliver, was sadly diagnosed in 2009. I understand from my right hon. Friend that they have raised more than £700,000 since then to fund research into treatment and to support families impacted by FOP. I am sure that many, many families are incredibly grateful for all their efforts.
At the outset, let me confirm that I am happy to join my right hon. Friend in meeting the Science Minister on this issue. We already work hand in glove on matters of research, and the House would expect nothing less. It would be remiss of me not to also welcome the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) to her place and to congratulate her on her promotion on the Front Bench. I also thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their constructive and powerful contributions to this afternoon’s debate. I will endeavour, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to give as full and comprehensive a response as possible, given that I have far longer than any Minister usually has to respond to a Backbench Business Committee debate.
Let me kick off with a question asked by the hon. Member for Blaydon about the national genomic test directory. I scribbled those words down at pace as she was speaking. I will check and write to her specifically to confirm this, but my understanding is that FOP is a form of skeletal dysplasia, which is in the national genomic test directory. I will confirm that in writing once I have checked with officials on my return to the Department.
I want to assure the House and, of course, all families affected by rare diseases and conditions—I note my right hon. Friend’s point about FOP being a condition, but “condition and disease” is a phrase that the Department and clinicians often use—that we certainly recognise and understand the challenges they face. These diseases and conditions have wide-ranging impacts, not just on sufferers’ physical health, but on their mental health and on their involvement in the community, as he set out. That is why it is crucial that those affected by this condition receive the best possible care, from swift diagnosis to treatment, to improve their quality of life as diseases and conditions, sadly, progress.
To do that, it is vital that the UK harnesses our research prowess. Today’s debate has largely focused on the power of research and how it is often the key to unlocking so much. Our universities, scientific institutions and healthcare system very much lead the world in this space—we often say that we are world leading in lots of areas, but research is certainly one area where we are. They have enormous potential to develop solutions to improve the lives of people living with rare conditions, including FOP. Let me be clear that the Government are committed to funding this research.
In July, the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research announced £14 million of investment to launch the UK rare diseases research platform. That is bringing together expertise from across the UK to foster new and innovative treatments for rare diseases and conditions, and to accelerate work to improve diagnosis. What is more, the Government are committed to funding groundbreaking research through nearly £790 million of new investment, again through the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s biomedical research centres. There are 20 centres, all of which research rare conditions and bring together academics and clinicians. Their role is to translate scientific breakthroughs into potential new treatments, diagnostics and technologies.
Liz Twist
I thank the Minister for his comments about the UK rare disease funding. It is very welcome, and I am particularly pleased to see that some of those centres are in Newcastle, in the north-east. That is really important, as I will discuss in my Adjournment debate later. Will he talk specifically about research into this condition, which is what the families will want to hear?
Will Quince
The hon. Lady pre-empts my next sentence, but let me give way to my right hon. Friend before I continue.
Sir Mike Penning
I will await the next sentence with interest. I have been to Oxford and met many of the scientists who are carrying out the research, but bidding for this sort of funding is enormously complicated. It takes forever and a day to fill in the bids—a lot of time, and time is money for a scientific facility—and will not help with FOP because it does not fit into the categories that the Minister refers to. It is so rare that we have to bid for funding across Europe or with the Americans. Is there any way that we could simplify the process, so that researchers could know earlier whether they have a chance of getting the funding or if they are wasting their time?
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Given the complexity of the issue he raises, it might be helpful if I respond in greater depth at our meeting, where I will invite Professor Lucy Chappell, who heads up the NIHR, to explain that process. She is always looking at how we can improve routes to research and make it as easy as possible for researchers to come forward with fundable bids that the NIHR is then in a position to fund.
The hon. Member for Blaydon pre-empted my next sentence, which was going to be on FOP specifically. I am pleased to say that the Government are funding dedicated research into FOP. Since 2010, the Medical Research Council has funded three projects relevant to FOP. I will ensure that right hon. and hon. Members get further detail about exactly what the Government have funded.
In the last five years, the NIHR has supported seven studies specifically into FOP. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said, the biomedical research centre in Oxford has supported the STOPFOP clinical trial that is exploring the safety and efficacy of using the new drug Saracatinib, to which the hon. Member for Strangford referred, to treat sufferers of FOP. Both the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council welcome funding applications into any aspect of human health.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead rightly made a point about the challenges of designing trials for rare diseases. The efficacy and mechanism evaluation programme that is funded by the NIHR and the MRC may suit researchers who are interested in FOP, as it looks to attract studies with novel methodology designs that can deliver results efficiently and quickly.
My right hon. Friend and others rightly referred to Horizon Europe. I know that, ideally, he wanted the Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation to respond to this debate, but I reiterate that I work incredibly closely with that Minister because I have responsibility for all research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and through the Department. Moreover, the NHS is a vehicle for so much of the research that happens.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, Horizon Europe is a valuable platform for researchers from across the continent to come together to tackle shared challenges, especially in areas of this nature where the number of patients affected, or certainly diagnosed, is very small. It has been an important source of funding for research into rare diseases and conditions, including the STOPFOP study. As my right hon. Friend alluded to, we have been negotiating the UK’s continued involvement in the programme. I am delighted to say that, such is the timeliness of this debate, the Prime Minister this morning announced the successful conclusion of those negotiations with a bespoke deal in our national interest, as the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology set out in a statement to the Commons earlier today.
Let me respond to my right hon. Friend’s specific point about how quickly research can be stood up. As of today, UK researchers can apply for grants and bid to take part in projects under the Horizon Europe programme, and they can do so with certainty that the UK will be participating as a fully associated member for the remaining life of the programme to 2027.
Sir Mike Penning
This is a learning process for all of us, and it is not just about FOP. As I understand it, Horizon asks for bids on certain aspects. A bidder can only bid if they fit into those criteria and then they have to wait for up to two years to run the project. The FOP project had to stop because of covid. To start all over again would be very difficult. I wonder whether the Minister will join me in that meeting to see whether we can slot into the process, rather than start all over again.
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Again, he has pre-empted what I was about to say next. I listened intently to his question to the Secretary of State during the statement earlier today, where he secured a meeting with the Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation. Of course, I would be very happy to join him at that meeting. I share with him the view that if there is an opportunity for that research to be continued, we certainly do not want to see it start from scratch. At the moment, my understanding is that that research relates only to adults and my right hon. Friend, understandably and rightly, would like it to be extended to children.
Let me turn to the steps that the Government are taking to tackle rare diseases and conditions more broadly. In 2021, we published the UK rare diseases framework, which embodies our commitment to building a brighter future for people living with rare diseases and conditions. The framework identified four key priority areas: helping patients get a faster diagnosis; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals, which is something that my right hon. Friend is particularly passionate about; delivering more co-ordinated care; and, alongside that, improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. Since then, as was alluded to by the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), all four nations of the United Kingdom have published rare disease action plans to suit their healthcare systems, and we very much work—and have to work—in collaboration on that.
In England, we published our second rare disease action plan on 28 February this year, which also marks International Rare Diseases Day. In that, we set out 13 new actions to drive improvements across the health system and we are committed to publishing action plans throughout the lifetime of the framework.
I touched on awareness of FOP and rare conditions and diseases more broadly, because my right hon. Friend rightly highlighted how a lack of awareness of FOP in the medical community can lead to under-diagnosis, missed diagnosis and, sadly, unnecessary examinations, which can exacerbate symptoms. That is why improving healthcare professionals’ awareness of rare diseases and conditions is central to the rare diseases framework. I am pleased to inform the House that we are making good progress in that regard. NHS England has developed GeNotes, which is an online resource that puts information about genetic diseases and conditions at the fingertips of healthcare professionals. I am pleased to tell the House that resources dedicated to FOP will be added to GeNotes. That will help more clinicians to diagnose this awful condition, and sufferers will receive the treatment that they need more quickly.
My right hon. Friend has raised newborn screening with me privately. The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) also raised newborn screening for FOP. They are both right that antenatal and newborn screening can be a vital tool in the early diagnosis of rare diseases. National screening programmes are implemented on the advice of the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, which makes independent evidence-based recommendations to Ministers in all four nations. While I understand that there are currently no plans for a national newborn screening programme specifically for FOP, I highlight that proposals for new conditions can be submitted to the National Screening Committee’s annual call for new topics.
Liz Twist
On newborn screening, is the Minister aware that there is concern among the rare disease community about the limits of our newborn screening process? This is something that we are speaking about at the moment. We think that there are options for it to be expanded in a positive way.
Will Quince
I have heard that from other charities, groups and organisations representing those with rare diseases and conditions. It is right that we respect the independence of the National Screening Committee, which puts forward to Ministers evidence-based decisions, but it is nevertheless important that we listen to organisations that are making valid cases. I am also concerned about the length of time that the National Screening Committee can take to make decisions, review evidence and present recommendations to Ministers. In our meeting, I will happily discuss that issue in greater depth and at greater length.
Let me once again thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead for securing today’s hugely important debate, and in particular for securing it on the Floor of the House. I express my heartfelt support for the entire FOP community: those living with the disease, their carers, their families, the clinicians and the charity FOP Friends, which works tirelessly to improve the lives of people affected by this devastating condition. I reiterate my thanks to all Members for shining a light on the condition this afternoon. I very much look forward to our meeting and to discussing this further. I genuinely believe that together we will continue to strive for progress and awareness, and support those living with FOP.
Sir Mike Penning
What an excellent debate we have had. I apologise if I was in any way rude to the two Front Benchers when I said that I would have preferred the Science Minister. I will have the Science Minister later, so that is perfectly okay. I am very grateful to today’s Minister, who set out some things that we did not know.
On screening, if we know about this early, we will save the NHS money. I know that an independent body looks at rare diseases and conditions, but for this particular life-changing and life-shortening condition, the aspirations and dreams of parents are changed dramatically the earlier they know, because the earlier they know, the earlier we can get those at FOP Friends who have been through it themselves helping them. The more we can screen, the more we will find—the one in 1 million figure shows that we do not know about enough people, because it does not work that way—and the more chance we will have of getting consultants who specialise in this area, rather than the three that we have currently. The more active we are in this area, the more scientists will want to come to this country and work at Oxford with the team there, and with other teams. That means that there will be a future for the families who are so badly affected.
I am enormously grateful to the House and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting a debate on a subject that most people freely admit they knew absolutely nothing about until bits of paper came across from my office. In particular, I thank Jon Mole from my office, who has contacted nearly everybody’s office and said, “What more do you need?”, including those on the Front Bench, because it is really important that we have that knowledge. I remember saying to him the other morning, “Have you given that to so-and-so?”, and he said, “Yes, it’s already gone.” For instance, with the letter to the Prime Minister this morning, which I know the Minister received, I was told five minutes before coming into the Chamber that he had it.
There was a lovely moment outside No. 10 with the families and the affected children and young people. Little Lexi handing the letter in at the door of No. 10 was a very moving moment. Let us hope that with the ministerial meetings we are going to have and with the great news about having partnerships with Europe, rather than being run by Europe, which is really important, particularly with Horizon—[Interruption.] Members knew I would get that in. Let us hope that with those things and with the nations of this country and this great Parliament coming together and saying, “We need to do something about this,” we can do it. FOP affects so few people, but the scientific research could affect a lot of families and help them in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered funding for the prevention of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva.
Cell and Gene Therapies: Skills Provision
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
What a coincidence to have one debate about rare conditions followed by another. I am pleased to have secured this debate on skills provision for new cell and gene therapies.
The emergence of new cell and gene therapies, sometimes known as advanced therapies, offers real hope for patients with rare and genetic conditions. Many of these patients have so far faced limited treatment options and endured great challenges associated with managing their conditions long term. However, using the power of human biology, cell and gene therapies can address the root causes of diseases rather than just their symptoms, preventing disease progression and even saving lives. In many cases, a single one-time treatment can be all that is needed to alleviate a disease. Not only do these therapies provide relief for patients from the need for lifelong treatments; they could provide long-term cost offsets by freeing up NHS resources and enabling patients and their carers to be economically active.
However, it is not only rare disease patients who stand to benefit from cell and gene therapies. As research continues, we could see a world where cancer patients can be effectively cured of their disease and where type 1 diabetes is addressed by enabling the body to once again produce and regulate insulin.
These developments are huge for patients. That is a point that I want to stress, because in all these debates we need to remember who is at the centre of this new technology: it is people, living their lives in the best way that they can, and wanting the best life and the best treatment possible. That requires us to recognise that research and healthcare have not always been equitable and that patient decisions to participate in clinical trials or receive treatments may be more complex than for conventional medicines, because of the very irreversible, one-off nature that makes them so transformative. That is why ongoing patient and public involvement is so important, to build better relationships between researchers and patients and empower patients to make informed choices.
I want to talk now about two of my constituents, Freddie and Louis. There are many stories about the transformative effects of new gene therapies, but I will speak about the story of these two young brothers. Following a long struggle by the boys’ parents, older brother Freddie was diagnosed at 12 months with spinal muscular atrophy, a rare, genetic neuromuscular condition that causes progressive muscle wasting, as the Minister will know.
Freddie is a happy, social and determined boy, and he has hugely benefited from access to the lifelong treatment nusinersen, which his family say has saved his life and independence. However, they have faced challenges and costs in securing the equipment needed to allow Freddie to have the freedom he deserves, including fundraising for an all-terrain wheelchair that allows him to take part in as many activities as possible with his peers.
As Freddie was diagnosed with SMA, his younger brother Louis was screened for SMA and diagnosed before birth. As a result, Louis became the youngest pre-symptomatic baby in the UK with SMA type 2 to receive Zolgensma, a groundbreaking new gene therapy, at just 18 days old. More than a year on from getting that treatment, Louis has no signs or symptoms of SMA and is expected to continue to grow and live his life free from the disease.
As SMA is currently not screened for in the UK’s newborn screening programme, Louis would not have received such early intervention had it not been for Freddie’s diagnosis. As cell and gene therapies tend to slow down or prevent disease progression, early intervention can be absolutely vital. For more patients to benefit, we need not only a more expansive newborn screening programme, but a cell and gene therapy sector equipped for timely development and delivery of new treatments, many of which are becoming possible and available.
At this stage, I acknowledge the work of LifeArc, which has published a report on the future possibilities for cell and gene therapies in the UK. The report highlights what we need to do to make the most of the opportunities that we have.
So far, the timely development and delivery of new treatments is not guaranteed. The very nature of cell and gene therapies means that they are unlike standard off-the-shelf medicines. Specific infrastructure is needed to deliver them, from specialised manufacturing sites to specialised equipment in hospitals, as well as a specialised workforce, which is the focus of this debate.
The number of cell and gene therapies coming to market is expected to rise significantly in the coming years, but the current picture suggests that staff shortages could hinder progress. There is therefore an urgent need to prioritise skills provision. We need a significant expansion of the cell and gene therapy workforce. Studies by the cell and gene therapy catapult show that the cell and gene therapy and bioprocessing industries in the UK currently employ nearly 7,000 people, and that the number of highly skilled roles required is expected to more than double by 2026. However, there are significant barriers to achieving that: the highly specialised and complex nature of advanced therapies makes the sector particularly vulnerable to skills gaps. What we need is a UK-wide strategy and plan to develop a workforce that possesses the relevant skills that are desperately needed by the industry.
One hurdle is the limited public awareness, outside the academic world, of cell and gene therapies. Improving the exposure of career pathways will be vital, especially for potential technicians and other staff who will have less familiarity in the field. Proactive engagement with students as early as primary school could empower them to pursue careers in cell and gene therapy. That could include bringing scientists and industry experts into classrooms, or a focus on understanding rare conditions, cancer and the transformative effects that treatments can have on patients’ lives. Heightened public awareness of the lived experiences of rare disease patients, and of the transformative potential of cell and gene therapies, should also feed through to higher education, but as it is very much a specialist field, science, technology, engineering and maths students need guidance on how to specialise. They also need to be equipped with the basic lab skills and experience needed to get started in the workforce, which is a particularly current issue for the industry.
However, the industry will not be able to rely solely on new graduates. Instead, it will need to draw on workers in declining industries, such as oil and gas production, and attract people who have not been to university. The Government need to support the CGT industry to access all those potential pools of recruitment by promoting the visibility of the cell and gene therapy field and investing in training and development programmes. A first port of call, for example, could be working with stakeholders to create a central platform for job, training and education opportunities in the sector, so that those interested in the industry need only go to one place to find the information they need.
Most critically, the Government need to play an active role in equipping candidates with the skills they need, working with academia and industry to create a national strategy for placements and internships. For non-graduates or those changing careers, we should be taking advantage of the cell and gene therapy catapult’s existing advanced therapies apprenticeship community and advanced therapies skills training network. With ringfenced funding and the convening power of Government, the Government could help to expand those schemes into a national training framework, to develop a sustainable workforce pipeline. Training bursaries may also need to be provided for those changing careers, so that adult workers can learn new skills without losing income.
At the moment, training academies run by well-funded individual companies risk undermining collective training efforts, fragmenting training standards and depleting the workforce pool for small and medium-sized enterprises. To tackle that, we need new forms of accreditation that can guarantee consistent and quality practice. We should also find ways to incentivise companies to share their knowledge to the benefit of the whole sector.
Of course, many of these issues relate to the development and manufacturing of cell and gene therapies, but if patients are to benefit from these new treatments, NHS staff must also be trained to deliver them, or we could end up in a situation where treatments are available but patients cannot access them. There is also a risk of geographic and socioeconomic inequities in access to advanced therapies. Without proper planning and preparation to ensure health service readiness, some patients could be disadvantaged based on where they live. That is why we need a national vision to ensure an equitable, standardised approach to the expansion of the cell and gene therapy field and the training of NHS staff. Accreditation passports, a central learning hub and provision of flexible, blended training opportunities could all come into play.
Geographic considerations are important more broadly within the sector and life sciences as a whole. While much of the UK’s life science industry is concentrated in the golden triangle, the cell and gene therapy industry is generally better distributed. My local enterprise partnership in the north-east has identified cell and gene therapy as a key area of growth for the future, and the sector could offer jobs for people with various levels of qualifications across the region. We have to make sure that we are capturing the talents and experiences of people across the UK, not just in London, Oxford and Cambridge.
We also need to ensure that there are research facilities looking at rare diseases right across the UK. Newcastle is a key centre, and the north-east has an important part to play; I would like to stress that. The cell and gene therapy sector must work with local authorities to develop more locally responsive recruitment and regional skills pipelines, with greater information sharing between manufacturers and treatment centres to ensure that patient demand is met.
There are a lot of considerations here, but first and foremost what we need is a strategy—a strategy that will not only plan for the expansion of the sector but do so in a manner that puts patient need and care at the heart of its goals, because that is what this is all about. It is important that patients are listened to in all this and that plans are put in place not only to develop and deploy treatments but to ensure that patients are supported prior to, during and after receiving new therapies. As we upskill people to get involved in this space, we need to imbue them with an intimate understanding of the lives of the people they are working to treat, so that they might best serve their needs and understand their priorities.
I hope that the Minister can today provide assurances that his Government plan on delivering a detailed strategy to support the expansion of the cell and gene therapy sector, to allow patients equitable access to treatments that stand to transform their lives. We have so many opportunities now, and we need to make the most of them for those who are affected by rare conditions and rare diseases.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate. Before I get into the substance of the debate, I wanted specifically to thank her for raising the issue of SMA and Freddie’s case. To answer that specific point directly, because it is an issue that I am alive to—I alluded to it in the previous debate just a few moments ago—my understanding is that the University of Sheffield is currently undertaking work that specifically relates to SMA and the gathering of evidence to present to the National Screening Committee. I hope that will be welcome news, and as there are developments, I will certainly keep the hon. Lady updated.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right when she says that a highly skilled workforce is critical to developing these therapies and making sure that UK patients benefit. The right training and education will also provide those joining this hugely important industry with a rewarding career that they can be proud of. The UK is a leader in cell and gene therapies: nearly a quarter of Europe’s cell and gene therapy developers are headquartered in this country. The number of cell and gene therapy clinical trials conducted in the United Kingdom also continues to increase, from 28 phase 3 trials in 2020 to 44 in 2022.
As the hon. Lady mentioned, the number of cell and gene therapies coming to market is set to increase substantially, with over 1,500 clinical trials ongoing worldwide. Although the Government are funding many skills initiatives to prepare for that expansion, collaborations with industry, charities, the healthcare sector and—crucially—UK academia are also vital. The cell and gene therapy catapult, which is part funded through Innovate UK, is a key part of that collaborative approach, which provides practical training and identifies the skills that are needed across the sector.
The advanced therapies apprenticeship community, which was set up by the cell and gene therapy catapult with £1.5 million from the industrial challenge fund, is the first apprenticeship programme designed to train individuals in developing, manufacturing and—of course —delivering innovative advanced therapies at scale. That award-winning programme has supported over 300 apprentices, employed by 56 companies. In addition, the catapult has set up new state-of-the-art skills and training laboratories in Stevenage to sit at the heart of the world’s third largest cluster of advanced therapy companies.
In its latest cell and gene therapy skills demand survey, the catapult forecast a skills demand of 10,000 bioprocessing jobs by 2026, a growth of 151%. Earlier this year, at the May 2023 life sciences growth moment, we announced £54.5 million to boost UK medicines manufacturing, which included up to £38 million for a new biomanufacturing fund.
On 5 September—this goes specifically to the point about education and schools—we announced that £5.5 million of the life sciences growth funding would be used to establish a medicines manufacturing skills centre of excellence. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we want to encourage more people, and young people in particular, to consider a career in this field. Upskilling talent from similar industries will also help to increase capacity. Backed by £4.7 million of Government funding, the advanced therapies skills training network is a national initiative to drive growth across the advanced therapies and vaccine manufacturing industry. It has supported over 3,285 learners to date, providing training and supporting uptake of new talent from different sectors while, vitally, also upskilling existing staff.
Clinical staff also need support to conduct research and learn new methods of delivering treatments. The advanced therapy treatment centres network is a world-first network operating within our NHS. Co-ordinated by the cell and gene therapy catapult, it addresses the challenges of bringing advanced therapies to patients. The ATTC has produced learning tools, including a knowledge-sharing platform, with more than 270 resources, which has had more than 28,000 hits worldwide.
Will Quince
As was raised multiple times in the previous debate, the National Institute for Health and Care Research supports the development of researchers, including through its £790 million investment in the biomedical research centres, of which 14 out of 20 currently conduct research into cell and gene therapies. Cell and gene therapies are also a strategic priority for the Medical Research Council, and it will be launching its updated advanced therapeutics strategy, which includes support for skills and training, later this year.
Between 2011 and 2022, the Medical Research Council funded over £30 million in advanced therapy-focused fellowships. It has also recently launched—I am afraid this is going to be difficult to say, as it is a bit of a mouthful—a cell and oligonucleotide therapy fellowship, in partnership with AstraZeneca, which aims to develop links with industry through secondments, training and mentoring. Innovation hubs for cell and gene therapies, which is an £18 million strategic initiative with co-funding from the MRC, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and LifeArc, has published a skills and training strategy that sets out how it will support skills in the sector.
We recognise that we need a skilled, innovative and responsive cell and gene therapy regulatory workforce—that is absolutely key—and I am pleased to say that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is working with partners across the UK health ecosystem to create faster, risk-proportionate and predictable regulatory pathways, which are underpinned by the recruitment and training of highly qualified expert assessors. This will support innovation and create a compelling reason for companies to introduce new medical products in the UK.
In closing, let me again thank the hon. Member for Blaydon for securing this important debate. The UK already has the skills to deliver new therapies, but she is absolutely right to point out that it is vital that we continue to invest to ensure we have the right staff with the right skills to develop and harness the potential of these hugely exciting new therapies.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Security and Net Zero
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie
The United Kingdom already has a great story to tell on reducing our carbon emissions. We have reduced our emissions faster than any other G7 nation. We were the first European nation to legislate for net zero. We have the first oil and gas basin dedicated to going net zero and the first, second, third and fourth-largest offshore wind farms in the world operating and generating power off the coast of Great Britain right now. We have eliminated our reliance on coal. We have grown to more than 40% of energy being generated by renewables. We have announced further investment in carbon capture, usage and storage, and we are pressing ahead with Great British Nuclear, which I launched two months ago with an exciting programme for small modular reactors. We are on track to deliver 24 GW of nuclear power on the grid by 2025.
[Official Report, 5 September 2023, Vol. 737, c. 274.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie):
An error has been identified in my speech on the Energy Bill. The correct information is as follows:
Andrew Bowie
The United Kingdom already has a great story to tell on reducing our carbon emissions. We have reduced our emissions faster than any other G7 nation. We were the first European nation to legislate for net zero. We have the first oil and gas basin dedicated to going net zero and the first, second, third and fourth-largest offshore wind farms in the world operating and generating power off the coast of Great Britain right now. We have eliminated our reliance on coal. We have grown to more than 40% of energy being generated by renewables. We have announced further investment in carbon capture, usage and storage, and we are pressing ahead with Great British Nuclear, which I launched two months ago with an exciting programme for small modular reactors. We are on track to deliver 24 GW of nuclear power on the grid by 2050.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 7th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 View all Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 September 2023 - (7 Sep 2023)
The Chair
I had not thought that there would be any need for a private session, but one Member has something that he wants to raise, so I think we should have a very brief private session. However, I should point out that the time that we take up by sitting in private will eat into the time for the witnesses.
The Committee deliberated in private.
Examination of witnesses
Jonathan Turner and Steven Barrett gave evidence.
The Chair
I apologise to the witnesses and members of the public who are attending today, for allowing them in before unfortunately having to ask them to withdraw while we sat in private. There was an issue that the Committee wanted briefly to discuss before we went into the formal, public part of the proceedings.
We will first hear evidence from Jonathan Turner, the chief executive of UK Lawyers for Israel, and Steven Barrett, a barrister at Radcliffe Chambers. I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick rigidly to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has already agreed. For this panel we have until midday. Could the two witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Jonathan Turner: I am Jonathan Turner, chief executive of the organisation UK Lawyers for Israel and a barrister.
Steven Barrett: I am Steven Barrett. I am a barrister; I write sometimes in the press on law, and I occasionally appear in the media on law.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Before we begin, may I say for the sake of transparency—I do not think that this is a fully declarable interest—that Steven Barrett is known to me as a councillor in Buckinghamshire?
Richard Hermer: For the sake of transparency, I am a Conservative councillor in Buckinghamshire unitary authority. That will not form part of any of the evidence that I give to this Committee. I am a parish councillor in Chepping Wycombe, but that role is not party-affiliated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Q
Jonathan Turner: Yes, I would. I would go further and say that it has the beneficial effect of securing the UK’s compliance with international law, particularly with World Trade Organisation agreements, which impose restrictions on the UK central Government and a very wide range of public bodies. The Bill and its enforcement will ensure that activities or decisions of subordinate public authorities will not put the UK in breach of, particularly, the Government procurement agreement, which is part of the World Trade Organisation collection of agreements.
Felicity Buchan
Steven?
Steven Barrett: Yes, although I hesitate to reply on that because complying with international law is a political position. What I would perhaps like to make clear and explain to the Committee is our constitution and how we work. It is really important that this is understood. It was clarified recently by the Supreme Court, so we are back to now understanding the constitution, and we have a unique relationship with international law. If you wanted, we could all go to the British Museum and look at some 2,500-year-old international law—in fact, it is older than that. There are great masses of it. Absolutely no legal jurisdiction in the world makes all of it binding on that jurisdiction.
If you take a European-style constitution after the war, it will use a constitutional court to choose which bits of international law it wants and does not want. It makes it the job of its judges and courts to do that. When we were in some constitutional confusion after coming out of the EU, I wondered whether that was the system that we would use, but what then happened was quite clear.
You may all remember the Northern Ireland case about the impacts of the protocol on the Acts of Union: it went to the courts, and the courts very clearly said, “No, this is not for us.” We are clear that we do not have a continental-style system in which a court can break international law or exit it for us. We have a system where you deal with it. This Parliament deals with international law, and we draw a line that we call incorporation.
Incorporated international law is binding upon us. You will all remember Miller 1 and the fuss that the Government had where they pretended that they could get out of the EU without passing an Act. No! The part of international law that made up the EU was incorporated international law. To get rid of incorporated international law, they had to use an Act of Parliament. If it were unincorporated, that would be entirely different.
That is the line that we draw. It is really important that people start remembering it. We have not really needed to know about it since the ’60s. In his speech clarifying this, Lord Reed, the President of the Supreme Court, was very forgiving: he just called it a misunderstanding that had arisen. I like to call it a confusion, because nobody should feel guilty about this: these are bits of the constitution that we have not had to wield for decades. How was anybody supposed to know instantaneously that when we left the EU, this was what would happen? But that is what happened.
It is the role of Parliament, not Government, to control the operation of international law, and you do that through Acts of Parliament. This Bill is lawful—of course it is—because it is simply a mechanism for doing that. In his most recent note, I note that Mr Hermer concedes that. The only relevant part to come out of a lawyer’s lips is whether you can or cannot do something; whether you should or should not is entirely for you. He says that you can, and I think that that is enough from any lawyer.
The Chair
Given the constraints on time, I will bring in other members of the Committee. If there is time at the end, I will bring the Minister back in.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jonathan Turner: Most of his advice, I think, is wrong. I have set out detailed reasons why his opinion that was published and circulated at the time of Second Reading was wrong, but I would like to take the opportunity to address the note that he sent round last night, because I am afraid to say that it is still wrong.
One of the points that he made before claimed that this Bill would effect a profound change in the autonomy of local government. That is just not correct: there are existing, very substantial restraints on the autonomy of local government when it comes to procurement and investment. Some of those will be replaced by the Bill and some will continue, but it is simply not the case that this makes a sudden and enormous change. He has accepted that section 17 of the Local Government Act 1998 effected a substantial restriction on local government bodies, but he has ignored—even though I have sent him two emails pointing this out—the EU legislation, which effected a very substantial restriction.
He goes on to say that the Local Government Act applied only to local government bodies, not to other public authorities, but the EU legislation applies to a very broad range of public authorities. The regulations implementing the EU directives in England and Wales and Northern Ireland are to be repealed by the Procurement Bill, which is in its final stages. It does not affect the regulations implementing the EU directives in Scotland, which will apparently continue in force; the memorandum from the Scottish Government to the Scottish Parliament suggests that that will continue to be the case.
The position is that this Bill effectively replaces that EU legislation as far as England and Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned, within its terms, in relation to territorial matters. What the Bill really does—the most important aspect of the Bill—is transfer a matter that was regulated by EU law into a matter that is regulated by national law, and set out the national law governing this particular matter. It is part of the Brexit agenda of, if you like, taking back control: you may agree or disagree with the decision that the British people made, but it was made. A major part of the function of this Bill is to replace pre-existing EU-based legislation with UK- based legislation, together with the Procurement Bill.
Wayne David
I hope so, too. I just want to ask your advice. Is it appropriate for a witness to this Committee to give evidence in the form of attacking another witness who does not have the opportunity to respond to those comments because he is not here? Surely a witness should be giving positive remarks about why something should be done, rather than criticising another witness.
The Chair
It is an interesting point, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. It is in the hands of the witnesses themselves to give their evidence in the way that they think most appropriate, and if that involves commenting on evidence that we have already heard, it is certainly acceptable for them to do so. You might not like it—
The Chair
But it is the system. I am going to move swiftly on now. A number of Members have indicated that they want to take part. I call Alex Norris.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
“would cause a reasonable observer of the decision-making process to conclude that the decision was influenced by political or moral disapproval”.
Are you content with the phrase “reasonable observer”? Do you think it is tight enough? Could it be clearer?
Jonathan Turner: Yes. “Reasonable observer”, or “reasonable person”, is used throughout English and Welsh law and so on. It is the basis of the law of negligence. You interpret contracts with reference to how they are understood by the reasonable person. In legislation, similarly, and in lots of other documents it provides an objective test, instead of looking at the subjective intention of the maker of a statement. That has the benefit of greater certainty and greater clarity, which is why it is used.
I am very happy with it being the formulation that is used. I do not think that there is any problem with it at all; I think it is the best way of doing it. You would have terrible difficulties if you tried to do things in terms of the subjective intention of people adopting the decision.
Alex Norris
Q
Steven Barrett: It is not likely to be tested, because it is quite a settled test. It is a legal mechanism for taking subjectivity and turning it into objectivity, which is what law does—and which is why when I speak in public on law I have the unique and remarkable opportunity to annoy everyone. It is an acceptable test and I would not worry about it. The courts are familiar with it.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Q
Jonathan Turner: Certainly parts of it are necessary. Otherwise, you have the Leicester City Council type of approach of saying, “We are supporting boycotts. We want goods from a particular territory to be boycotted as far as the law allows.”
That is deeply problematic. First, it has the same impact on community cohesion as any other BDS measure that targets a particular country and indirectly targets a particular ethnicity. Secondly, it creates a degree of confusion and difficulty for the staff who have to implement it: they have to work out what the law does allow in terms of boycotting, they have to find out what the facts are, they have to go to the lawyers, and there will be arguments about it. The whole thing becomes a mess and discourages them from accepting certain tenders. They are further discouraged by the fact that they might offend some of the councillors who were so vehement about passing the measure. It has a chilling effect on the public authority and the staff who are left dealing with it. That is what I see as the primary target of this provision.
As to whether it conflicts with human rights requirements: no, it does not. It only binds public authorities. It does not stop individual members saying, “I support BDS. I don’t like what such and such a state is doing.” It only stops a public authority saying that. Public authorities, as we know from the House of Lords decision in the Aston Cantlow case, do not have human rights under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. I think that is why they have chosen to do this by reference to section 6 of the Human Rights Act and its definition of “public authority”.
The Chair
Mr Barrett, is there anything you want to add?
Steven Barrett: No, because I cannot answer the necessary question because I think that would be a personal and political opinion. I can say that it is lawful and that I agree that it would not breach article 10.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Q
The Scottish Government oppose the BDS campaign, but also strongly discourage trade with companies active in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—an occupation that was recognised as illegal under international law and by the UK Government. How would you both respond to the concerns people have that the Bill effectively condones what many would regard as illegal occupation?
Jonathan Turner: First, I do not accept that it is an illegal occupation. Many international lawyers will say that the settlements are illegal. This is based on article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits a state—an occupying power—from transferring part of its population into an occupied territory. But conducting a business is not transferring population.
It is not just me who says this. The Supreme Court said it in Richardson v. Director of Public Prosecutions. It said that conducting a business in the west bank does not make the private operator of a factory a person who is promoting the transfer, by the state, of people into occupied territory. Running a business is not transferring people. It is sloppy thinking to say that the settlements are illegal. Companies operating in the vicinity of settlements do not normally operate in residential areas anyway; they normally operate in trading estates outside the residential areas. It is sloppy thinking to say that operating the factory, selling the goods or buying the goods is illegal under international law. It is not.
Steven Barrett: All I would say is that what you think about the situation in the middle east is a personal political opinion. As law, it is important that we get back to a healthy relationship with international law, which is understanding the role of incorporation and your role in controlling the flow of international law into this jurisdiction.
When the President of the Supreme Court corrected this for us lawyers, presumably to pass on to people like you, he speculated that it might be because we are so used to the EU. For 40 years, EU law was supreme here, which meant its being in charge. That meant that Ministers could be told, “No, Minister, that policy is illegal,” or “No, Minister, you cannot do this.” That has been going on for so long that many of us, simply by a form of muscle memory or attachment to that, are used to groping for some legal reason not to do things.
Now the EU has gone. International law has never been supreme; it is not supreme anywhere, and it has certainly never been supreme here. So you—all of you, collectively—need to come to terms with the power and responsibility that you have. If you think something about the situation in the middle east, or if you think something else about the situation in the middle east, you must sort it out. We will use democracy as a mechanism for settling the issues and seeing what the voters think, but that is the system that we have, and it is very important that we operate in it.
Really the only important part of Mr Hermer’s statement, which I saw this morning, is where he says, “You can do this.” Honestly, that is all you need to know. But groping around for just a resolution of the UN, which is a pretty weak source of international law anyway, and then looking at its wording and trying to say, “That means you can’t pass an Act of Parliament here”—no. That is constitutionally eccentric.
If somebody will allow me, I do have drafting concerns about the Bill. I do not know whether we will get to those, but I would like to raise them if I can.
The Chair
We are running rapidly out of time, but there is an opportunity for one very quick question.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Q
Steven Barrett: Yes. Mr Hermer actually flags them himself, and he is right. Paragraph 6 of the schedule is a constitutionally unique event. Given everything that I have said and explained to you here, we have never recognised all international law as binding. On my reading of that paragraph, it seems to me an extraordinary statement. If you do not amend that, I seriously suggest—well, I would just get rid of it, to be honest, because it is giving supremacy to international law. It is conceding the power that the voters gave you and giving it to this great, great mass that is thousands of years old. People will be able to reach into the great mass that is international law and pluck out everything. You could probably pluck out bits that contradict the other bits. They will be able to pluck or draw out something to justify whichever boycott they want. The people who are motivated to do boycotts are very strongly motivated to do them. They will use that paragraph.
I also think that they will use paragraph 4 on finance, which is just a bit woolly. I think it could be tightened up. I would be very happy to help with the drafting; I might write a note after this, if that would assist anybody. I am always happy to help Governments of any colour. Should the Government change, I will be happy to help—on law only.
I wanted to raise those two issues. Paragraph 6 in particular is really a constitutional aberration. It gives away your sovereignty to a great, amorphous entity that is not properly controlled. At least the EU had structures and was under control. If you think of international law as like a territory, it has carved out a space for itself and it is stable. The rest of international law is not stable.
The Chair
On behalf of the Committee, may I thank the witnesses? I am sure it has been quite a probing experience for you, but even if individuals might not agree with the advice that you have given, I think they respect the fact that it was given in good faith and comes from a base of knowledge that is very helpful.
Examination of Witnesses
Yasmine Ahmed, Dave Timms and Peter Frankental gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Yasmine Ahmed: I am Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director for Human Rights Watch.
Dave Timms: I am Dave Timms. I am the head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Peter Frankental: I am Peter Frankental, economic affairs programme director at Amnesty International UK.
Chris Stephens
Q
Yasmine Ahmed: Yes, I certainly agree with that. Essentially, what we see is that the Bill is going to restrict the ability of public bodies—a wide definition, as you know—to carry out their human rights due diligence responsibilities under the UNGPs. They have those responsibilities and international obligations, and what the Bill does is wholly suffocate the ability of public bodies to carry them out.
Essentially, the Bill does that by saying that a public body is not able to take account of the human rights record of a state, or companies operating within a state that is carrying out human rights abuses, except in specifically exempted cases. As we know, and as has been highlighted to you in previous evidence, the specific exemptions have significant loopholes, but even leaving those aside, there are still international crimes and human rights violations that are not caught. I will give you an example: suppose I am a public body and I want to stop investing in a military company that is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia and UAE that are being used to commit war crimes in Yemen. This Bill will stop me from being able to do that. We know that the Bill will mean that public bodies cannot carry out and adhere to their due diligence responsibilities.
Something that is extremely pernicious from our perspective is that the Bill will have a significant chilling effect on public bodies. If I am a public body, what incentive do I have to do appropriate due diligence—both environmental and human rights due diligence? If I do that and something arises, and then one of the enforcement bodies imposes a notice on me that requires me to send all the information I have about the decision I made, given the fact that the Bill is so ambiguously worded that it only needs to be “a consideration”, how am I to know that I will not be penalised? As a public body, I would not be in anyway incentivised. The Bill runs a coach and horses through ESG responsibilities, human rights responsibilities and due diligence responsibilities.
I know the Government have consistently said that this is about public policy and ensuring that public bodies do not carry out their own foreign policy. What the Bill actually does is stifle public bodies and the Government from carrying out their own responsibilities and, on the face of it, complying with international law. It is totally inconsistent as well with their own business risk guidance and the implementation of their own UNGPs. It is a hammer through that. Anyone who tells you that it is not has not adequately read the Bill.
Before I hand over to my colleagues, I would just say that I am a lawyer who has been working in this jurisdiction for a number of decades now, and I can say that I have never read a piece of legislation that is as badly worded as this. It is ambiguous and runs a coach and horses completely through ESG responsibilities and business and human rights responsibilities. I think it is a very pernicious and worrying piece of legislation, and I am very happy that the Committee is seized of the matter.
The Chair
To the other two witnesses, it might be helpful in terms of our time constraint if you could initially confirm whether you are happy with the evidence already given, and if not, please say so. Secondly, could you raise any additional points that you do not think have come out in the first response? I hope that is clear.
Dave Timms: I agree entirely with Yasmine’s comments. Hopefully we will get to talk specifically about the environmental implications, but I would add to her answer the pernicious way clause 1 is constructed and the impact that will have on civil society organisations going about their reasonable activities to try to create environmental or social change. We have heard a lot of the witnesses say that it does not have gagging implications or free speech implications, but the actions of civil society organisations and members of those decision makers are drawn in by the nature of clause 1 and subsection (7), which talks about “any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”.
This is the state impinging on the activities of civil society organisations that are trying to achieve meaningful social change and trying to ensure that their money, their local authority or university is not complicit in driving destructive human rights or environmental activity. In that sense, this is a direct attack on the ability of civil society to go about the activities we would consider to be legitimate.
Peter Frankental: I totally agree with Yasmine and David. Public procurement in the UK, according to the OECD, accounts for 14% of GDP. That is enormous potential leverage to incentivise ethical business. That leverage is largely being lost because of the disincentives that Yasmine referred to. Let me give you one example of why the disincentive is so great. If a public body—say, an NHS trust—were to decide not to tender with a company in Malaysia, or a contractor in the UK that sources from Malaysia, and source rubber gloves from a factory that had been linked to human rights abuses, that would implicate the state of Malaysia. Under international law, states have a duty to protect, and that means holding companies accountable. If a company is involved in human rights violations or labour rights violations, the state has to some extent failed in its duty to protect, so disapproval of foreign state conduct is invoked. I do not think that the public bodies will want to go anywhere near giving effect to their human rights due diligence findings, because the risk and cost to them would be too great.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Yasmine Ahmed: As a matter of principle and policy at Human Rights Watch, we do not take a position on BDS. What we do say very clearly is that individuals, and whoever wants to, have the right to engage in BDS. It is part of their right to freedom of expression, association and assembly.
Dave Timms: For us, the position is exactly the same.
Peter Frankental: We do not take a view on BDS either, but we support the right of people to advocate for BDS. Can I just expand on that a little bit? More widely, we see the situation where human rights advocates and human rights defenders all over the world are delegitimised and stigmatised because of their human rights advocacy. All kinds of pretexts are given for this, such as offending public morals, being disloyal to the state and—as in this particular case, with this legislation—racism and antisemitism.
There is no reason in principle why any human rights advocate should not advocate for the human rights of Palestinians or criticise the human rights record of the state of Israel, and they should not be tarred with the brush of racism or antisemitism. That is a very dangerous road to be going by. If that approach is taken, will human rights advocates who draw attention to human rights violations of the Rohingya in Myanmar and the track record of the Government of Myanmar be accused of being anti-Buddhist? Will those who criticise the human rights record of the Indian Government with regard to the treatment of minorities be accused of being anti-Hindu? What of those who criticise human rights violations in the Gulf states? Anyone who advocates for BDS, which is a peaceful, non-violent means of achieving change and holding Israel accountable for human rights violations—Israel has enjoyed a considerable degree of impunity over the years—should be able to do that without being tarred with the brush of racism or antisemitism.
Felicity Buchan
Q
The Chair
It is an agree/disagree question.
Dave Timms: I am afraid that I completely disagree with the assertion that there is any protection whatsoever for fossil-fuel divestment campaigns. We are extremely concerned about the chilling effect that the Bill could have on those. You have said that fossil fuels are not specifically mentioned, but I am afraid that the Minister does not have the ability to say what is excluded because of the construction of the first clause, which mentions
“a reasonable observer of the decision-making process”.
In fact, the Department’s own delegated powers memorandum, in terms of contracting with suppliers, talks about being “affiliated with certain countries” and divestments from “organisations” that are affiliated “with certain countries.” So if we are talking about divestment of fossil fuels from, say, Saudi Aramco, Equinor, Petrobras, Gazprom or other companies that are highly associated with a foreign Government, we think that will be brought very quickly into the remit of the legislation.
Also, as I said before, because it bites on the way people go about campaigning, and all the statements made during that, you will often see arguments for fossil fuel divestments being couched in terms of getting off fossil fuels because of the damage of climate change, but also because of the record of particular regimes. Those decisions could very quickly be blocked by this legislation. So I see no reassurance whatsoever that it would not have a significant impact on fossil-fuel divestment.
Nor do we take any reassurance at all from the exemption around environmental misconduct. It applies only to illegal environmental harm, yet so much environmentally destructive activity is conducted lawfully. We can look at something like the due diligence discussions that happened during the Environment Act, where the limitations on reporting on illegal deforestation were revealed because so much of the deforestation due to soy in somewhere like Brazil happens entirely lawfully. Or you can take something like Indonesian palm oil, where the legal status of land is extremely complicated and it becomes almost impossible to determine what land conversion has happened legally or illegally. How can a local authority or a public body possibly be expected to navigate that kind of complexity? What they will do is say that this legislation blocks them. So I am afraid that I do not accept your point.
The Chair
To use the same approach I advocated for the previous question, if the two other witnesses want to concur with or dissent from the response that Mr Timms gave, could they say so and perhaps raise any additional points that they think would be helpful to the Committee?
Yasmine Ahmed: Yes, I wholly concur with what Dave said. I would just add that first, as Dave noted, it has to be illegal. Fossil fuels, not necessarily the extraction of fossil fuels, are not illegal—that has been well covered. What about a situation where there are dual considerations? We see many situations where deforestation happens, for example, and there are attacks on indigenous communities and human rights defenders. What happens then? Is that caught by the Bill or not? As I mentioned, there is a litany of other human rights abuses and international crimes that are not captured by the Bill, so the exemptions are certainly by no means exhaustive. The very point that I would argue is that the Bill cannot, because the whole point of the Bill is to stop public bodies being able to carry out their due diligence responsibilities effectively.
Peter Frankental: I concur with Dave, but I want to add one point on the exemptions. The vast majority of cases reported of companies abusing human rights are not litigated—they are not subject to civil or criminal litigation; they are exposed by the media or by non-governmental organisations—so the exemptions defined in terms of breaches of law are unlikely to apply and no public body would feel confident in using the exemptions unless there has been a legal case. In so many jurisdictions, the law either is not in place or there is corruption or weak regulatory systems. The independently commissioned report on modern slavery by Frank Field, Baroness Butler-Sloss and Maria Miller drew attention to the very weak regulatory systems in the UK for implementing the Modern Slavery Act, so any reliance on the law will put public bodies in a very weak position.
Alex Norris
Q
Dave Timms: You could increase the scope of that exemption, but you would still be left with all the problems that have been pointed out. You could have the environmental misconduct exemption extended to any environmental issue or any issues surrounding environmental harm, or include anywhere that there is a breach of international environmental treaties or agreements, but that would still leave you with the problem that Yasmine pointed out: the fact that in so many cases, environmental problems are related to human rights abuses. Look at logging in South America, where there is a high degree of overlap with human rights abuses; you would not be able to do it. You also would not be able to deal with the problem you have in clause 1, which is that any activity from civil society would be dragged into this as well. Often environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth will campaign around concerns that overlap the environment and human rights. You might be able to chip away at the damage, but it is really hardwired into this from the start.
We have some experience of dealing with the kind of language in clause 1, which talks about a “reasonable observer”, because it is really similar to the chilling effect caused by the language in electoral law that bites on third-party campaigners, where you must have regard to what is reasonably intended to influence voters. That has had a huge chilling effect, which has been documented by parliamentary Committees, on the activity of civil society in campaigning on legitimate issues around election periods. We have seen language like this: it has been drafted in a way that is vague, and language similar to this has been shown to have a chilling effect on the activities of legitimate civil society organisations trying to achieve legitimate aims.
The Chair
Does anyone have anything to add to that? No? Okay. I will come next to Dr Luke Evans.
Dr Evans
Q
Yasmine Ahmed: What is very clear is that our organisation says that public bodies have to discharge their responsibilities under business and human rights of the UNGPs, and they have a responsibility to comply with international law. That is the very point that we are trying to make here. Let us set aside BDS, because what the Government are doing with this Bill is stifling the ability of public bodies to discharge the Government’s own responsibilities and obligations under the UNGPs and under international law. That is what this Bill is doing. That is the effect of the Bill and that is the problem with the Bill.
I wholly agree with Peter’s position on BDS, as does Human Rights Watch, and the right of individuals and the importance of people being able to advocate for the rights of Palestinians as they advocate for the rights of other individuals, but that is not what we are talking about here, because the effect of this Bill—actually, the crunch of this Bill—is that it stops the Government complying with their own responsibilities and international obligations.
Dr Evans
Q
Yasmine Ahmed: What I think, as I have said, is that when a public body is making financial decisions on procurement investment, it should take account—it has to take account—of the human rights and environmental implications of what it is doing. That is the answer.
The Chair
Q
Peter Frankental: I will just add that a decision by a public body not to procure with a tenderer should not necessarily be seen in terms of BDS. It is not necessarily a boycott; it is a means of effecting due diligence. If it is done in a way that is proportionate and on a case-by-case basis, as the vast majority would be, I would not see a problem with it.
I will just add something from the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill. It is made absolutely clear in the impact assessment that there is no definitive evidence linking public procurement and investment to discrimination on grounds of race, religion or belief. That is set out in three paragraphs of the impact assessment—paragraphs 60, 61 and 64. So, the main premise behind this Bill, that it is necessary to prevent public bodies from engaging in antisemitism, is not compellingly evidenced, according to the Government’s impact assessment.
Only one procurement case is given, that of Leicester City Council, which took a decision not to procure with Israeli settlements. That was challenged in the courts on grounds of a breach of the public sector’s equality duty, and the Court of Appeal found that Leicester City Council had not breached its equality duty, was not being antisemitic and was mindful of community cohesion, and that its decision not to procure from settlements was based on a respected body of international opinion, including the UN, the EU and the UK’s own policy on not recognising the settlements as legal. It is perfectly possible for public bodies to take these decisions without that being seen within the sweeping form of BDS.
The Chair
Thank you. Two more people have indicated that they want to ask questions. In order to save time, I will take the two questions and then perhaps the witnesses can determine between themselves who will answer them.
Ms Qaisar
Q
The Chair
I will bring in Brendan Clarke-Smith now for his question, and then you can share the answers between you.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Thank you for your input today. You mentioned that people may be subject to equalities claims with the way the law is at the moment. Do you not feel that having a clear policy on this, both nationally and in terms of foreign policy, can protect local authorities if they diverge from it? That is why this Bill makes the picture a lot clearer for local authorities and avoids that situation where they may put themselves under threat and in breach of equalities laws.
The Chair
I do not know who wants to take on the two questions. I will leave it to you.
Peter Frankental: Sorry, I could not hear the first question. Could you please repeat it?
Ms Qaisar
It was to ask what impact the Bill will have on the UK’s relationship with those in the occupied territories and with Palestinians here, across all four nations, who wish to exercise their freedom of expression so that the actions of the Israeli Government can be held to account.
The Chair
Mr Frankental, will you tackle that one?
Peter Frankental: I will begin with the second question. Sorry, I did not completely hear the first question. On foreign policy, I do not believe that procurement decisions that are taken on the basis of due diligence engage foreign policy at all. That is a human rights or environmental due diligence matter.
Yasmine Ahmed: To add to that, if you are talking about trying to give certainty to public authorities, what this Bill does is create complete uncertainty. The UK’s business risk guidance and the UNGPs say something completely contrary to what this Bill says in terms of being cautious, considering your human rights and environmental responsibilities, and doing adequate due diligence, and in terms of the UK Government’s position on the occupied territories and particular settlements within them. How we provide clarity to public bodies is a really important question. This Bill is certainly not the way to do it, because it provides much more uncertainty.
I am happy to attempt to answer the other question, if that is helpful. What the Bill means in relation to people in occupied territories is a really good question. I might expand on it slightly to say that from an international relations perspective, we should be thinking about a Bill that combines and excludes activities in Israel within the green line and the occupied territories. I am being very clear about what that says in relation to what the UK Government are saying about the Russian occupation in Ukraine, and the crimes that are being committed in that context.
It is a really important question because we should be thinking about community cohesion from both sides of the coin. What the Bill essentially says is that advocating for divestment from Israel, where Israel is committing crimes and a company is implicated in those crimes or human rights abuses, is wrong because it is linked to antisemitism. The other side of the coin—as you rightly say—is about what that does for Palestinian groups advocating for their rights, and the community cohesion between the two groups. A lot of the Jewish communities we have been engaging with have said, “We do not want our name associated with the Bill, because we are not saying that antisemitism is linked to the crimes and abuses that are being committed by Israel.”
It is very clear that there is a problem of antisemitism in this country; you just have to look at the statistics. However, the way the Government should be approaching the issue, if they were properly thinking about it, is through the equalities duty, education and speaking to communities. They should not be creating a law that is going to create many more problems, provide impunity, and undermine their business and human rights responsibilities and international obligations.
The Chair
Thank you very much. I am afraid we have reached the end of this panel. I thank the three witnesses for the open and frank way in which they have addressed the questions raised by Committee members. We are grateful to them for being here today.
Yasmine Ahmed: Thank you so much.
Dave Timms: Thank you.
Peter Frankental: Thank you.
Examination of witness
Richard Hermer KC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Richard Hermer: Good afternoon, Sir George, and members of the Committee. My name is Richard Hermer. I am a barrister, as you have said, at Matrix Chambers. My areas of expertise most relevant to this Committee are in public law and international law, including international humanitarian law. I advise and represent a wide range of individuals, companies and, indeed, Governments, and I lecture on those topics both here and abroad.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Richard Hermer: Good afternoon, Minister. Of course, law imposes on all decision makers—be it local authorities or public bodies—a range of restrictions through law on their decisions, whether it is a purchasing decision or any other type of decision. That is what the legal framework does. I have identified in the two written opinions why aspects of this Bill are unprecedented in respect of its impact on human rights and international law. I agree with you as a matter of generality, but I disagree with you, Minister, as to this particular Bill.
The Chair
I am not going to bring the Minister back in. We have only 15 minutes for this session.
Chris Stephens
Q
“effectively equates the OPT with Israel itself and is very difficult to reconcile”
with Britain’s support for a two-state solution. Will you expand on those comments?
Richard Hermer: Yes, of course. The manner in which the Bill does that is it affords a unique protection to just one category, which is Israel, the occupied territories and the Golan Heights—one protection from being placed on the list of exceptions—whereas any other country in the world can be placed on the list of exceptions and therefore subject to adverse economic decisions by public bodies through the fiat of the Secretary of State or the Cabinet Minister. That power is denied to the Secretary of State or Minister in respect of anything to do with Israel, the occupied territories or the Golan Heights. It is accorded a special status, and that can only be changed by primary legislation. In that sense, it separates out Israel and the OPT from the rest of the world.
Wayne David
Q
Richard Hermer: Yes. I am mindful that we have only 15 minutes, probably now 10. Can I just give you a brief framework, because I think I have to disagree with the outline that Mr Barrett gave you? International law has always been key to this country, and very broadly speaking it operates on two levels. The first is on the international plane. That is our obligation to comply with international law at the international level. Secondly, in so far as it has been incorporated into English domestic law, the Government have to comply with it on a domestic level.
It is the international law level that I flagged up first in my written advice. As a country, we have always played a leading role in upholding and, indeed, creating international law. Both main parties have a proud history of that. It has fallen into slight disrepute in more recent times as we have had some legislation that expressly seeks to avoid our international law obligations, but generally speaking, that is something we can be proud of. There are two aspects in which that is relevant: first, because the Government have contended that this does comply with our international law obligations, and secondly, because the Committee will no doubt wish to ascertain whether it in fact does or there is a risk that it does not. I hope that answers your question, Mr David.
Dr Evans
Q
Richard Hermer: There are some examples of American states passing what I would describe as more extreme versions of this. France is interesting because the Strasbourg court has looked at France on two occasions and the most recent one upheld that its laws were incompatible with article 10. There is not much else out there by way of example. Israel has its own laws on BDS. I am not sure where that takes us. Ultimately, Parliament has to look at this Bill on its face. How it stands up in comparison does not tell us anything about international law—it might help with the context, but beyond that, I am not sure that it would necessarily help the Committee.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Richard Hermer: I am firmly of the view that it is incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which is incorporated into our law via the Human Rights Act. I have listened carefully to the views of others, not least the way that it has been explained by the Minister, and I respectfully disagree.
There are two elements to this. First, who does it bind? There is no dispute that it does not bind a public authority per se, but it would undoubtedly bind a leader of a council or a vice-chancellor of a university—that is, the full array of public authorities or bodies acting as a quasi-public authority. Certainly, it is incapable of engaging the free speech of those individuals. Secondly, there is an analogue to the free speech of the individual in article 10, which is also the right of the public to have information. This engages article 10 in both those ways.
Once we have engagement of article 10, it then falls to the Government to justify it under article 10(2) I have set out in my first opinion the text of article 10(2). There are a number of hurdles that a Government would have to pass. We should also remember that this is not just in the context of BDS; this is in the context of any country and any conflict. I set that out in paragraph 34 of the opinion that the Labour party published. In order to establish that there was no breach of article 10, it would need to be shown that the restrictions were necessary
“in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
It is almost impossible to see how there could be a justification here. As matters stand, this would be deemed incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Q
Richard Hermer: No, I do not. In the human rights movement, there are lots of campaigns that focus on one particular country. For example—and I do not wish to be trite—if you look at the Rohingya, we are targeting Myanmar. If you look at what is going on in Yemen, most of the campaigning is around Saudi Arabia. You can pick examples from all around the world.
Undoubtedly, the BDS movement, as it is known, focuses on Israel. But often human rights campaigns focus on individual counties, because it is often individual countries that are committing human rights abuses. From a legal and human rights perspective, I do not feel that there is a need for additional protected status—all the more so, if I may say, in respect of the occupied territories and the distinction that is drawn there. I find that, on all sorts of levels, very hard to understand.
Wayne David
Q
Richard Hermer: I think I set out quite a few in writing. First, clause 1 could be taken to mean something entirely different to that which I think the Government intended—to just focus on particular territorial disputes rather than, more generally, the human rights record of a company.
I am afraid that, again, I disagree with Mr Barrett about the dangers of the “reasonable observer”. In some areas of the law that is a common phrase. But here, if the Bill proceeds, it is a pretty binary question: have you offended the Act and taken into account considerations that you should not, or haven’t you? I do not understand what the test of reasonable observer adds beyond uncertainty and, potentially, injustice. On that analysis, you can have no intention to break the law, but a reasonable observer may nevertheless consider that you did. The vagueness there is potentially very troubling. There are also the other examples I have put out in writing.
Obviously, a great deal of oxygen has been taken up on BDS, and one can understand why that is. But I would stress—as I hope I have done in writing on two occasions—that the impact of the Bill extends across the whole panorama of human rights and this country’s engagement with human rights, not just one particular incident. It engages not simply what local authorities can do, but the full range of public bodies in this country.
The Chair
Thank you for the brevity of your responses, which enabled us to get a lot more questions in than I had anticipated in such a short session. It has been very helpful. Thank you very much.
Examination of witness
Melanie Phillips gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Melanie Phillips: I am Melanie Phillips. I am a British journalist and I spend much of my time these days living in Israel.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Melanie Phillips: Many people, pretty understandably, draw a distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. However, my view is that what we are all talking about when we talk about concerns over the way Israel is treated in public discourse is not criticism but a unique campaign of delegitimisation and demonisation.
Now, it should not follow that, even if you demonise the state of Israel, British Jews get it in the neck. But it is a fact—it is on record—that every time the public prints are full of not just criticism of Israel’s behaviour but a presentation of Israel in which it is a unique human rights abuser in the region, attacks on British Jews, both verbal and physical, go up. So there is in practice—whatever the reasons you may adduce—a complete connection between the two. In my view, that is not really surprising. For many people in this country and elsewhere, their understanding of Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history and the connections between all those things and the land of Israel is extremely limited. Many people do not understand how intimately Jewish identity—Jewish religious identity—is wrapped up with the land of Israel.
For all those reasons, a boycott movement that stigmatises Israel, singles it out for treatment afforded to no other country and identifies it, therefore, inescapably as a unique evil in the world must have an impact on the Jewish community.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Melanie Phillips: Yes. A statement of intent is clearly no more or less than that, but the evil of a statement of intent is that it is a statement of delegitimisation—a statement that Israel is uniquely evil, that it uniquely requires this kind of approach. Therefore, any Jewish person in Britain who supports Israel is deemed to be fair game, and any Jew is deemed to be fair game because people assume, rightly or wrongly, that they identify with Israel.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Q
Melanie Phillips: I think there is no contradiction between the two. As you say, the Bill is the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment. The manifesto commitment is a broad one, and the Bill is a broad one, as you heard from your previous witnesses. There are exemptions of different kinds, and the particular exemption you are talking about, which singles out Israel, is done for a particular reason: in a Bill that deals generally with boycotts, there is one boycott that stands out as unique, which is the boycott movement against Israel. It has characteristics that do not apply to any other action taken against any other country, group or cause. In the view of the Government, and I agree with this view, it is a uniquely evil impulse, designed uniquely to destroy Israel as the Jewish state—as the Jewish homeland—and with malign potential repercussions on the Jewish community. Consequently, because it is a unique situation, it requires a specific exemption, as it is so bad that it cannot be ever thought that it could ever happen.
Wayne David
Q
Melanie Phillips: I am certainly concerned about China. And, by the way, thank you very much for the compliment—flattery will get you everywhere. I am concerned about China, and I would like and prefer our Government to take a stronger view about China—a stronger approach to China. But that is not really the point at issue here; the point at issue here is that it is for the Government to determine foreign policy—I may disagree with that policy, but it is for the Government to determine it. If local authorities or public bodies—bodies taking public money—go off on a frolic of their own and boycott China, Saudi Arabia or whoever, you have a kind of anarchy, and you cannot have that. To me, that is the issue.
As I understand it from what Ministers have said and from my reading of the Bill and these exemptions—obviously, you realise I am not a lawyer—the Bill allows public bodies who take a view that the procurement decision they are being asked to take would involve the use of Uyghur slave labour in China to use the exemptions to not go down that procurement road. But the exemptions are limited to a number of areas that the Government have deemed to be on the right side of the line when it comes to saying that it is for the Government of the day to determine foreign policy, which I think is a sensible rule for the Government of the country.
Nicola Richards
Q
Melanie Phillips: I do not think the Bill itself seeks to make tensions worse or better, but it is a fair question to ask whether it will have that effect both here and in Israel and the disputed territories. The fact is that people who advocate boycotts of Israel over its behaviour in those territories, which classically involve targeting companies that have a presence in them, believe that this is hurting Israel. Well, it does, but the people it really hurts are the Palestinian Arabs who work for these organisations and companies. They have said over many years that they wish that the west would not go down this road. It is a disaster for them when it goes down this road. They and their families depend for their livelihoods on these companies. Boycotts are performative from their point of view—they are performative virtue signalling, which not only does not address the political challenges and difficulties that they believe they have but actually takes away their livelihoods. So this hurts them, and it does nothing about community divisions in these areas, because a state of—whatever you like to call it—war, insurrection, permanent threat of terrorist violence and so on engulfs this area, and Israelis are being killed, or there are attacks intending to kill them, literally every day. This does not affect that at all. What it would do, in my view, as I have said already, is make the situation of British Jews worse—it would affect it very badly. It would increase community divisions here; it would increase suspicion, aggression and division between the Jewish community and the non-Jewish community here.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Q
The Chair
Before I ask you to respond, I will bring in Steve McCabe and, with your forbearance, ask you to perhaps answer both questions together.
Steve McCabe
I think my question was the same. You said that the Bill would benefit from amendment. I wondered what you had in mind.
Melanie Phillips: As I have said before, I am not a lawyer, and I really would not presume to say what amendments there should be. I would suggest that all Bills, as I am sure you know better than I do, are susceptible to amendment and would benefit from amendment. When I wrote what I wrote, I was really reflecting that I had seen various people make various observations about things they thought were not right. I do not know whether that is right or not, but I am absolutely sure that there is scope for amendment. Consequently, I would hope that the Bill would be amended for the better. That was really the only thing I was trying to get at.
The Chair
Thank you. I would like to thank the witness for her characteristically forthright responses, which have been very helpful to the Committee. I would also say that, in my experience—I am sure you share it—it is as well to take compliments wherever you can get them. With that, thank you very much for your attendance. We are very grateful.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jacob Young.)
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
UK’s Relationship with Mexico
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK’s relationship with Mexico.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Gray. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving time for this debate, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues, all of whom have a deep interest in Mexico and its people.
I am pleased to have secured the debate, not just because we are nearing the 213th anniversary of Mexican independence and 200 years since the establishment of UK diplomatic relations with Mexico, but because I believe that this is the first time since 1938 that Parliament has found time to specifically debate UK-Mexico relations. Given Mexico’s immense economic, geopolitical and cultural importance the world over, I trust that hon. Members present will agree that this discussion is long overdue.
I am also pleased to say that this debate takes place in a far warmer diplomatic climate than its predecessor 85 years ago. I am sure that no one needs reminding that in 1938 our two countries had just severed diplomatic ties. The Mexican Government of the time, fresh off a progressive social revolution, had moved to expropriate foreign oil companies, which prompted our Government to suspend bilateral relations until 1942.
Today, of course, the situation is reassuringly different. For several decades, the United Kingdom and Mexico have enjoyed a close and fruitful relationship, the continued success of which will be predicated on the principles of co-operation and mutual respect. A shining example of that is the British Mexican Society, which recently celebrated its 70th anniversary. We can also enjoy the fruits of the relationship through the all-party parliamentary group on Mexico, which, next month, I will have had the privilege of having chaired for five years.
I thank the current ambassador to the UK, Josefa González-Blanco, who is a friend, as well as all her team at the embassy of Mexico. They have used their position to strengthen diplomatic ties at every opportunity and in particular to showcase Mexican culture on these shores. Few APPG chairs will receive the sheer number of invitations that I do to events hosted by the embassy, which showcase the culture, music and vibrancy that Mexico has to offer. Let me also praise our ambassador in Mexico City, Jon Benjamin. He is a good friend and one of the finest representatives we could have in Mexico City.
Today I intend to speak about a few areas. Let me start with our current economic relationship with Mexico. In 2021, Mexican foreign direct investment into our economy totalled £16.3 billion, and trade between our two countries amounts to £4.9 billion a year. However, there are many more opportunities to expand the relationship. Britain’s imminent accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership should represent an opportunity to give a significant boost to the size and scale of our trade with Mexico. On the whole, that should be a welcome development, but I urge my fellow hon. Members to hold on to a degree of caution. As is the case with any trade agreement, the CPTPP risks falling prey to the organising logic of our current system of global trade, which, without scrutiny, can prioritise narrow interests over the wider needs of communities, working people and the environment. I hope that as a CPTPP member, Britain will work with Mexico in supporting the agreement’s existing provisions, and furthering them, on issues of labour rights and environmental protection, which I know are also priorities for the Mexican Government.
In November last year, I asked the then Minister—the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) —what progress had been made on securing a bilateral free trade agreement with Mexico. He assured me that talks were progressing positively. The Foreign Secretary echoed that sentiment in his speech delivered in Chile in May, pointing out the recent completion of a third round of talks. I would welcome an update from the Minister on those discussions and would appreciate him telling us whether the Government still plan to appoint a trade envoy to Mexico. I hope that negotiations will be successful and that a deal will be agreed soon. I fear that sometimes the Mexican Government feel like they are not the UK Government’s priority; we must ensure that that is not the case.
In the Foreign Secretary’s speech in Chile, he also sought to conjure the ghost of George Canning. If I may direct hon. Members’ attention to another slice of our history with Mexico, Canning was Foreign Secretary during the Spanish-American wars of independence in the early 19th century. In that position, he resolved to swiftly recognise the newly won sovereignty of the fledgling American republics. Indeed, it was because of Canning that Britain became the first European power to establish formal bilateral relations with independent Mexico.
Conservative politicians are fond of that historical anecdote and reach for it almost every time they speak publicly about the UK’s relationship with Latin America. It is easy to see why. At first blush, it appears to be a solely positive story. Considering that the UK’s historical attitude towards the region has too often been defined by indifference or commercial exploitation, it is reassuring to be reminded that our history there started on such a bright mark. However, the version that gets relayed in speeches such as the Foreign Secretary’s is doused with a more-than-healthy dose of myth. Canning’s support for Mexico and other Spanish-American countries did not stem solely from an unnerving commitment to the shared values of liberty and democracy; it was part of a calculated strategy to advance Britain’s imperial interests and consolidate its primacy in Europe. Canning said as much himself, declaring in 1826 that he had spoken
“the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old.”—[The Parliamentary Debates, 12 December 1826; Vol. 16, c. 397.]
The Foreign Secretary also cited that famous sentence in his speech. In short, Canning saw the UK’s support for Latin America as a means to an end. In the succeeding decades, that support was repeatedly withdrawn whenever it was politically expedient.
The point that I am seeking to get across, which I think is the hidden lesson from Canning’s story, is that for Britain to truly strengthen its political, economic and cultural relationship with Mexico—successive Governments have consistently stated that to be an essential diplomatic objective—we need to approach that relationship as something positive and desirable in itself. I believe that it is here that we find the true crux of successful bilateralism.
We cannot treat our relationships with Latin American countries like pawns on a chessboard. We cannot view them purely as opportunities for the wealthy few to further enrich themselves. Our support for the principles of national sovereignty, self-determination and mutual respect cannot be solely symbolic. We must not appear to be more interested in protecting a few commercial interests than in building a lasting framework for international co-operation. That approach to foreign policy is not only objectionable but unsuited to the 21st century. It is plainly ineffective. As we gear up for an age of genuinely global challenges, we have to lay the foundations for meaningful multilateral action now. There are no viable solutions to problems such as climate change that do not involve closely co-ordinated international action, and Britain is incredibly well placed to play a leading role in those efforts, but to do so, we must first shed the last vestiges of colonial paternalism and single-minded self-interest. The way that we choose to manage our relationship with Mexico and other countries in the region—and countries across the global south—will determine our capacity to play that role.
In my third and final reference to Mexican history, I will borrow from Benito Juárez, the first indigenous President of Mexico, words that capture the sentiment that I have sought to convey today:
“Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace.”
Let me say, in the spirit of those words, that I have no doubt that the Mexican people understand their country’s challenges far more intimately than I ever will. For them, epidemics of femicide, disappearances and drug-related violence are not abstractions but terrifyingly common features of their lived reality. Some 152 journalists were killed in Mexico between 1992 and 2023. Every day, 10 women and girls are murdered by intimate partners or family members, and 100,000 people are currently disappeared. That is 100,000 families saddled with the heart-wrenching burden of not knowing whether their loved ones are dead or alive.
Of course, there are also the dislocating effects of climate change. As a result of its tropical latitude, Mexico is vulnerable to drought, food insecurity and the increased frequency of extreme weather events. The country’s status as one of the most biodiverse places on earth further raises the stakes. I make those points not in an accusatory way; indeed, we in Britain must reflect on how our legal and social relationship to drugs, and our consumption habits more broadly, contribute to the enormous human cost borne by the American people. I draw attention to those issues rather to remind Members that the UK has to, as a matter of course, assert its commitment to supporting Mexico, and to helping it tackle these substantial challenges—not as a finger-wagging imperial power, but as an equal partner sincerely invested in that country’s success.
I believe wholeheartedly that Mexico has at its disposal all the ingredients needed to develop into an unqualified success story. Its young population, burgeoning industrial capacity and rich cultural tapestry can all ensure that Mexico attains its obvious potential. For those reasons, it would be so encouraging to see a visa arrangement akin to that which the Foreign Office has secured with Uruguay included in any future trade deal with Mexico. That would allow young Mexicans and Britons to live and work in each other’s country for two years. Such an agreement would allow a new generation of young people to join the likes of D.H. Lawrence and Leonora Carrington in being part of the great tradition of Britons finding in Mexico the dynamism and inspiration that allows them to produce some of their best work. I look forward to hearing the contribution of others on this important relationship to the UK.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
As I am sure you and others in this Chamber recognise, Mr Gray, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) clearly has a very genuine interest in all matters Mexico, and I compliment him on his speech. I will keep my words brief, but I would add that he and I have met on other occasions, on which he has supported me in my role as trade envoy to Brazil. I have a wider interest in all matters Latin America, as does he. The trade envoy programme is an area where we can put our politics to one side and bring into the fold those with a genuine interest in a country. Whatever the political nature of Brazil’s Administration—whether we are talking about the politics of Bolsonaro or Lula—my interest in Brazil remains unabated. I am just as resolute, excited and enthusiastic about the prospects for our relationships with all South American countries, including Mexico, but especially with Brazil.
I am sure that the Minister would like to reflect on these few words, and also on how he might see Mexico developing as a future powerhouse in the wider Latin American region. I know that he is very well travelled, including going to Brazil; I am not sure about his diary in relation to Mexico, but I am sure that he will expand on that as and when he speaks. I take this opportunity to thank you for your indulgence, Mr Gray, because I had not put in to speak in the correct way, and for accepting these few words. I give my compliments again to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton on his words. We are all grateful for the ambassador’s presence here in recognition of what is being debated.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am delighted that we are having this debate on Mexico. I did not realise that it is the first one since 1938; I was not here at the time—I have been at all the subsequent ones. We have had many debates on Latin America, and obviously Mexico has been raised on a number of occasions. One should reflect, though, that in 1938 Mexico was going through a massive social revolution under the great Government of President Cárdenas, which brought about so much social justice and land reform for the people of Mexico. There is a memorial to the people of Mexico in Vienna that thanks them for being the only country in the League of Nations to oppose the Anschluss pact between Nazi Germany and Austria. Those anti-Nazis in Austria and Germany have never forgotten the role that Mexico played at that time.
One should also reflect that, for all of Mexico’s human rights problems, which I will come on to in a moment, it has traditionally been a place of welcoming for desperate people. Many republicans who had to leave Spain at the end of the Spanish civil war made their way to Mexico and were welcomed there, and they made a massive contribution to Mexican society. Indeed, many of those who were forced out of Chile 50 years ago this weekend, when the Government of Salvador Allende was overthrown in a military coup, initially made their way to Mexico. Some went on to Europe, Cuba and other places. We should recognise Mexico’s enormous contribution in a very principled, non-aligned way on the global stage in providing a place of exile for people, which has turned Mexico City into one of the most vibrant, multicultural cultural environments anywhere in the world, because of the coming together of people from all over the world.
I have been to Mexico many times. As many will know, my wife, who is here today, is from Mexico as well, so I have been well educated on Mexican history. I always appreciate—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) just made this point—that in Mexico there is an understanding and appreciation of history in a popular sense that does not really apply in any other country I have been to anywhere in the world. There is that sense of absolute pride in the Maya and Aztec remain there, but but there is also pride in the pre-Aztec and pre-Maya remains at Teotihuacán, near Mexico City and in magnificent places such as Chichén Itzá and all the others that are so famous on the global stage.
Despite all the Hispanicisation—if that is not a tortuous word—of Mexican society after the invasion of the Spanish empire, the languages have survived. Indeed, some of the writings have survived in the great writings of an indigenous woman, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, who was disliked by the Catholic Church because she could read, write and understand many languages and wrote a great deal of poetry, most of which was burned by the cardinals and others, but some of which survived and is now published in Mexico and other places. We should appreciate and understand that enormous cultural strength and history in Mexico.
If anyone visits Mexico, I urge them to stay two days longer, whatever their plans, and go to the National Museum of History in Mexico City. It is so wonderful and so large—it takes someone at least two days to work their way around it—but it is an education in itself on the history of Mexico and world history. There is an invitation to everybody: on any delegation, stay two days more, just to understand that part of the history.
Mexico also has the problem of its noisy neighbour to the north, the United States, and the history of that relationship, which has often been abusive. It was described wonderfully:
“Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.”
There were the USA’s wars with Mexico, in which it lost a lot of its territory, but the solidarity that some showed with the people of Mexico is not forgotten. Indeed, in the north of Mexico there is a very proud memory of the San Patricio brigade, of Irish people who started off fighting for the USA against Mexico, decided it was an unfair conflict, switched sides to join Mexico, and defeated the USA—as you do. Again, we should try to understand that history.
Like other Latin American countries, Mexico gained independence from Spain, but it was not a liberation of the indigenous people or the poorest people across the country. The landowning system was maintained, as was so much else. It was the 19th-century Government that brought about the great changes in Mexico. Benito Juárez’s constitution brought about rights, more democracy, and the beginnings of some degree of land reform and change. That was returned to in the 1917 constitution, at the end of the conflict in Mexico. We have to remember the rich vein of history that runs through Mexico, and the determination of people such as Zapata, who was a fantastic leader in many ways, to bring about justice and land reform in Mexico.
That is a fundamental point of history that we should understand. I wish that more British people who went on holiday in Mexico—well done them; it is good for the Mexican economy—would do a bit more than just go to the beach in Cancún, because there is so much more to see; as wonderful as the beach in Cancún is, it is important to see so much else. It is the diversity of Mexico that I fully understand. I want to express my appreciation to the many people in Mexico who have informed me a great deal, and hosted me on my visits to Mexico.
The Government in Mexico is that of President López Obrador, who is coming to the end of his term of office; elections are coming up next year, when he will have been in office for six years. I know López Obrador very well—I consider him a friend—and I had a very interesting conversation with him for several hours on the day before he became President in 2018. We talked a lot about how he would face the issues. Anyone who has aspirations to go into government here knows that there are challenges, difficulties, conflicts and all that, but think for a moment of going into government in Mexico and being faced with a huge problem of massive poverty, injustice, corruption, human rights abuses, unaccountable public services, and enormous numbers of human rights complaints against the police and the armed services. It is not a simple operation. One has to pay tribute to the work of López Obrador’s Government in trying to eliminate poverty in Mexico, through a very large increase in the minimum wage, better rights and working conditions for everyone in Mexico, and work to ensure that companies are better employers, which has involved working with trade unions.
There are also issues of healthcare and other reform issues. In our conversation, I said to López Obrador, “Is there anything you particularly like, admire or would want from Britain, as you move into the presidency?” I thought that was a bit of a leading question. He stared out of the window for a while, and I thought, “Oh God, I’ve asked the wrong question here.” Then he turned round and said, “The national health service. The principle of universal healthcare free at the point of need is something I absolutely admire about Britain, and I would love to emulate that in Mexico.” It has not been completely emulated in Mexico by any means, but there has been a huge increase in hospital building programmes, general practice programmes and access to healthcare. Prior to his Government, the majority of the population had no access to free healthcare other than the weekly one-hour free advice that was given by doctors. Queues would form six and 10 hours before the allotted hour to try to get a few minutes with a doctor, which was all the poorest people could get. It is not completely there yet, but it has improved a great deal, and we should recognise and applaud that.
The population is large and youthful, and education is key. The country has managed to put a lot more money into education, new school building programmes and, above all, new university programmes. Unlike this country, it does not aspire to load anyone who goes to university with a massive debt for the rest of their life. It wants to get them into university for free education to ensure it gets the professionals of tomorrow—the doctors, teachers, engineers and all the others who are needed. We should compliment the Government of Mexico on what they have achieved in those areas, and on what they are trying to achieve.
There are huge environmental issues and concerns. Mexico relies heavily on a hydrocarbon-based economy. That was an issue for the Cárdenas Government, which nationalised the oil industry in the 1930s, and Mexico still relies heavily on petrochemicals. I would like to see a faster transition away from that to a sustainable economy. It is very easy for us to lecture on hydrocarbon-based economies’ transitioning, but we must recognise the difficulties of doing that in rapid time. Colombia is going through exactly the same problems. Such issues are important.
I was pleased to attend President López Obrador’s daily press conference. He has a daily press conference for three hours every morning starting at six o’clock. He gets there at 5.30 to get ready for it, and then he takes questions for three hours. It is quite a sterling performance. I do not think that any other President anywhere in the world would do that. He asked me what I thought about the idea, and I said I thought it was completely crazy. He was determined to do it, anyway, and he insisted that I sit all through one to rid me of my criticism of the idea, and I did.
I was very pleased to be at the press conference when he re-announced that he was very sorry about the way that Julian Assange was being threatened with removal from this country to the United States, and he would always be welcomed and offered safety and sanctuary in Mexico, just as Mexico has offered sanctuary to many other people in the past.
However, Mexico faces massive problems in dealing with corruption and human rights issues. I have examples, but first I want to pay a huge compliment and express my thanks to our ambassador to Mexico, Jon Benjamin, who is deeply engaged in Mexican society in every possible way. He is very well thought of and respected throughout the politics of Mexico, and has been incredibly helpful on human rights cases in which there is British involvement. I will mention some cases.
The Ayotzinapa 43 were 43 students who, in 2014, left their rural agricultural workers training college on a bus to go to a demonstration. They all disappeared— all 43 of them. There was a hue and cry, and international outrage, and the authorities then started a rapid search to try to find out what had happened to them. What did they find? Unmarked graves, all along the area where the Ayotzinapa 43 had been, in Guerrero state, but none of them contained any bodies of the Ayotzinapa 43.
The sadness and the tragedy of migrant people from central America trying to get to the USA, in order to get to some place where they might be able to sustain themselves economically because of the poverty in central America, is that they end up being prey to gangs and all kinds of awful things, and they end up dying in unmarked graves. Those were the kind of people whose bodies were found, that were not the bodies of the Ayotzinapa 43, although I believe that the bodies of one or two of the Ayotzinapa 43 have since been identified.
On my last visit to Mexico, I spoke to Minister Encinas, who is dealing with the investigation into all this. The Mexican authorities have arrested and charged a large number of police officers and army officers on this case, but they have still not got to the bottom of it or the truth of it.
I give this example not because it is the only example of the brutality that corruption brings, but because it is just the tip of a very much bigger iceberg. Many criticisms are made, some of them justified, but the issue is the direction in which Mexican society is travelling. Is it trying to find out the truth about human rights abuses, or is it trying to sweep that under the carpet and get away? The former is absolutely the case; Mexico is trying to find out the truth.
There are a couple of other cases that I will mention, one of them because it has a particular British connection: the case of Claudia Uruchurtu, who was living in this country with her sister and family. She went back to Mexico and lived in Oaxaca. She was involved in a demonstration against corruption by local officials, one of whom was subsequently arrested, charged and imprisoned for corruption. She was last seen getting into a van and was never seen again. Now she is declared dead and disappeared.
Claudia’s family obviously want to know the truth; our ambassador, Jon Benjamin, wants to know the truth; I want to know the truth; and many others do, too. I thank Jon Benjamin for the work that he has done, and I thank Her Excellency the Mexican ambassador to Britain, Josefa González-Blanco, for the huge support and help she has given on the case, and for the work that she does as Mexico’s ambassador to Britain.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the case of Claudia Uruchurtu. We had the privilege of meeting her family when we visited Oaxaca last November. I also want to put on record my thanks to Jon Benjamin and his team, who have pursued this case all the way from the beginning. It has obviously caused incredible heartache for that family. I know that the Minister has had conversations on this issue, and I hope that at the end of the debate, he might be able to update us on whether there has been any progress.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I endorse absolutely everything that he said. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply, he will acknowledge the severity and seriousness of this case, and will say that the Foreign Office will remain seized of it and will continue supporting any investigations to bring about justice. That will not bring Claudia’s life back, sadly, but the prosecution of elected public officials for this is an important change in the legal process in Mexico. It sends the important message that when any similar case comes up, people all around the world will continue to pursue it. We should recognise that.
Jeremy Corbyn
I acknowledge that the Minister is nodding.
There are many, many cases that one could talk about. The one other case that I will mention is that of Miguel Orlando Muñoz Guzmán, an infantry lieutenant in the army who has been missing since 1993. He was last seen in Ciudad Juárez in Chihuahua, and he could have been threatened with the danger of going missing. He has been searched for all these years. Although the Government of Mexico have taken some action on this case, we want them to carry out a complete, impartial and effective investigation to determine Mr Muñoz’s fate.
Mr Muñoz is not the only one; his case is one of many that has been taken to the UN’s Committee on Enforced Disappearances. That is because Mexico faces the endemic problem of its relationship with the USA to the north and the pressure of large numbers of desperately poor migrant people from the south trying to get into the USA. Successive US Administrations—all of them; Obama, Trump and Biden—have essentially taken a broadly hostile approach to migrants coming into the USA from the south, even though the US economy does incredibly well out of the work, which is often very low-paid, of people who have migrated there.
I have discussed this issue at length with people in the Mexican Government. Ultimately, the only way forward is through better economic development and prospects for people all through central America, in Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica and so on. All those countries need stronger economic bases, and they have elected Governments who are trying to bring about that. I hope that the British Government will recognise that it is important to have not just good relations with Mexico, but a sensible trade and aid relationship with central American Governments, to help them bring about better forms of administration, less corruption and less inequality in their societies.
There is so much about Mexico that one could speak about for a great length of time, but I will not go on any longer, because I can see from the clock the way that time is moving on. I just want to thank the embassies for their work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, for his work as chair of the all-party Mexico group. We should see that the Government of Mexico are trying to improve the social conditions of their people. That is promising, and it is going very well.
There is an incredibly challenging situation, regarding relations with the USA and the historic levels of corruption and violence in society, brought about by the drug trade and drug war. While that is not for today’s debate, we may need to think more deeply about dealing with the drug issue in the USA and Europe by conducting a war in central America, Colombia and elsewhere. It clearly is not working and has not worked. Tens of thousands of people have lost their life in this drug war, and it has not brought about any solution. That may be for another day, but it is an issue that we need to be serious and think very deeply about. I thank Mexico for its work on the international stage to try to bring about nuclear disarmament, peace and non-alignment around the world.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Gray, for chairing the debate today. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on making a well-informed and understanding opening speech about the relationship between Mexico and the UK. It was incredibly helpful for him to set the scene in that way and he demonstrated well that he has a huge depth of knowledge in this area. I congratulate him.
I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I was also not aware that it had been such a long time since we had had a debate on Mexico, so I am glad that we have been able to have one today. The last thing I want to say in opening is that the small number of hon. Members here does not demonstrate a lack of passion throughout the House for the UK’s relationship with Mexico. Unfortunately, it is a Thursday afternoon, when debates here tend to be a bit less well subscribed. Many of our colleagues would have liked to be here but other commitments have kept them elsewhere.
Thankfully, we have had a number of excellent and illuminating speeches. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). His depth of knowledge is, again, clear. Unfortunately, I have not visited Mexico, but the more he talked about the excitement around its history, the keener I was to go there. I may do so once my children are a little bit bigger because dragging them on to a flight of that length is probably not something that I will do at this point. Once they have left home, it will be one of the very top countries on my bucket list.
I will largely talk about the subject of the debate, which is the UK’s relationship with Mexico, but first I want to touch on an issue in Mexico that we could learn from. In recent times, the Mexican Government have raised their age of military recruitment from 16 to 18. The SNP has been pushing for that for the UK’s armed forces. The UK is an outlier in the matter, with only 13 countries in the world that continue to allow 16-year-olds to be recruited. We know from Child Rights International Network that UK Army recruits under the age of 18 are twice as likely to commit suicide while serving. There are massive inherent risks with 16 being the age at which we continue to recruit people into our armed forces. I would therefore urge the Minister in his conversations with Mexico and the people who have implemented this policy change to ask how it happened, how it was implemented, and what was put in place to ensure the transition went as smoothly as possible. That will enable us to hopefully emulate that change here in the UK and no longer be an international outlier.
Moving specifically to the relationship between the UK and Mexico, I want to speak about the free trade deal and trade with Scotland in particular, as Members would expect. Scotland exports to Mexico more than any area of the UK, except for the east of England. It is not in our top 10 export destinations, but it is a priority for the Scottish Government, and we are hoping to get it into the top 10. Mexico is the ninth most popular country for whisky exports, which is obviously a massive export for Scotland. Of the UK’s exports, 12.5% come from Scotland, which is more than Wales, Northern Ireland and the south-west of England combined. We hope to keep the strong relationship with Mexico.
As the UK Government move toward a trade deal, we need to ensure that it is as advantageous as possible for both the people in Mexico and people here. I know the UK Government will be trying to prioritise wins in trade deals, but they have unfortunately set a disappointing precedent with the New Zealand and Australia trade deal in relation to beef and lamb exports from those countries. A significant risk is posed to Scottish farmers from an increase in beef and lamb exports from Mexico should a trade deal be signed. Unfortunately, given that the UK has already done these deals with Australia and New Zealand with few safeguards regarding beef and lamb, the Mexicans will be very well aware of that and will be negotiating on the basis of precedent.
I urge the UK Government when looking at the trade deal to ensure that they are protecting the rights and livelihoods of our farmers, to ensure that we can continue to grow our own food, and to provide some measure of food security for the people who live in Scotland and the wider UK. It is very difficult for our farmers to have this security if they are being undercut by the UK Government’s poor decisions in trade deals. The UK Government must prioritise this when looking at exports.
On the links between Scotland and Mexico, we have seen an increase in the number of Mexican students coming to Scotland, which is truly excellent. There is a significant number at Glasgow University, for example, which has a burgeoning Hispanic society. That is a positive thing. Unfortunately, some of this has come about because of a reduction in the number of EU students as a result of Brexit. We want the immigration and visa systems to be as flexible as possible, allowing people to live, work and study in our country.
Obviously, the Scottish Government are not in charge of immigration. Constituents come to our offices every day with significant problems with the visa and immigrations systems. Visas are granted in some cases, but it is taking months and months for people to hear anything about it. In some cases, appeals are delayed or they win on appeal anyway and then are living in uncertainty. Because of this oppositional immigration system, we are not able to attract the talent that we would like to from Mexico or other countries, and this is because we in Scotland do not have control of our own immigration system. The UK Government should look again at the lag in visas and the issues that that causes, particularly for people coming to work and study, because it makes Scotland and the UK a less positive destination. People are less likely to want to come and live and work here purely because of the ridiculous hoops, bureaucracy and time lags in our immigration system.
The right hon. Member for Islington North mentioned hydrocarbon-based economies. That is an important link that Scotland, particularly the north-east, has with Mexico and other Latin American countries—oil-producing countries. A significant number of my constituents have spent time in places such as Mexico, Texas, Dubai and Norway. They probably have a slightly different profile from the majority of constituents across this House and these isles who go to visit those countries. We can learn a lot of good practices and positive things from each other in relation to this issue.
Obviously, we have a declining ability to access oil and gas. We are doing what we can to move towards a just transition. Scotland is doing what it can to meet its climate change targets and try to provide economic certainty for the regions. We have put additional moneys into the just transition, which the UK Government have failed to match. Although the UK Government are not doing as much as I would like on that just transition, there is still a significant amount to learn and a lot of positive knowledge to share to ensure that the transition away from hydrocarbon-based economies is as non-negative as possible.
We do not want what happened to the mining communities. We want a planned transition so that the people coming out of jobs in oil and gas—whether in Aberdeen in the north-east of Scotland, the UK or Mexico—have jobs to go to, and so that those skills, particularly the ones applicable to renewables, can be utilised as widely as possible. We could have a positive relationship with Mexico regarding that move.
There is also the opportunity for us to trade in decommissioning, for example, given the incredible amount of experience and expertise in and around Aberdeen. We are one of the first countries in the world to be doing decommissioning en masse. As other countries move into that space, we should be utilising our economic powers and opportunities to be able to share that. Also, with the continental shelf, the UK is the gold standard for safety. Things have been not quite so good recently, but certainly previously we were the gold standard. If we can, it would be great to ensure that other countries decommission as safely as possible in order to protect both our environment and the men, mostly, who are working on it.
Lastly, on democracy, the Mexican president has gone on record to say that the UK Government must honour the principles of “participant democracy” and allow an independence referendum. We welcome that support. Scotland has continually voted for the SNP standing on a manifesto that includes an independence referendum. We have an incredibly positive relationship with Mexico, including an honorary consulate in Glasgow to ensure that we keep those strong links. We recognise and appreciate the support for our democratic right to an independence referendum, and we thank the Mexican president and the country of Mexico for the honorary consulate and for their support for Scotland’s democratic voice to be heard.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray, especially on this wonderful, warm and fabulous Thursday.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this debate. As we know, he brings strong knowledge to this place on international relations, not only because of his role as president of the Forum of Young Parliamentarians of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, but because of his leadership of the APPG on Mexico. As we work to reconnect Britain with our friends and partners around the world, it is essential to engage closely through Parliament and inter-parliamentary institutions. It is through these organisations that we help to build consensus on issues important to all our countries—from trade, to human rights, to the rule of law and the importance of the international rules-based order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton is clearly doing an absolutely sterling job on that account, including with this debate. I express my thanks on behalf of the Opposition to him and all those who play such an important role in forging and developing the ties that bind our two countries ever closer together. That includes our diplomats, but equally businesses and civil society leaders.
I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I have now absolutely clocked his plea for us to add two days to any trip that we might be lucky enough to have to Mexico. I would certainly love to go round a museum like that to show me the depth of the history and the beauty of the culture of this amazing nation. If I am completely honest, UK-Mexico relations are not yet an area of expertise for me—
Ms Brown
Not yet. So I hope colleagues will forgive me if I keep my remarks briefer than normal on this occasion. I add my voice to those saying what an absolute privilege it is to be joined by Ambassador Josefa González-Blanco Ortiz-Mena and her embassy team today, who work tirelessly to strengthen the ties between our nations. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) on her appointment to the Labour Foreign, Commonwealth and Development team as shadow Minister for Latin America and the Caribbean. Unfortunately she cannot be here today, but I am delighted to be here instead.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton stated, 2023 marks the bicentennial anniversary of the start of formal diplomatic relations between the UK and Mexico, and next week on 16 September Mexicans will celebrate their independence day. The Opposition wants to extend our warmest wishes for that happy event. Strengthening our relationship with Mexico can only bring significant benefits to both our countries. Mexico, as we know, is the second largest economy in Latin America and the 16th largest in the world, and its demand for exports is expected to increase by over a third by 2035. So much more can be done to raise awareness and to seize trade and investment opportunities. Sadly, Mexico accounted for only 0.3% of UK trade in 2021, making them our 44th largest trading partner.
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend will be aware that the huge Tren Maya project that the Government of Mexico have been pursuing to build a 15,000 km railway line across the southern part of Mexico will be joined by some British Railways rolling stock in the near future. It is being shipped from Great Yarmouth as we speak to help make up the rolling stock needs of the new railway, so there is an improvement. There is an awful lot of railway technology in Britain that could well be marketed in Mexico.
Ms Brown
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. As the Foreign Secretary said earlier this year,
“With some British businesses, they don’t think of Latin America”
so I hope the Minister will expand on what the Government are doing to change that, to build on the example that my right hon. Friend has just given us, and to create new opportunities following our signing of the CPTPP trade agreement in July. As we know, once this agreement is in force next year, it should lower certain barriers to trade and enable our economic ties to deepen. At present, our trade is based on a continuity agreement following Brexit and, unfortunately, this covers only goods, leaving out our strong service industries, including creative, digital, financial and legal. I hope the Minister might be able to explain what progress is being made on the prospects for an expanded bilateral agreement that takes better account of the UK’s strengths and how global trade has changed over the 20 years since the Mexico-EU agreement was struck. Since May last year, three rounds of talks have concluded. In what ways do these talks include climate change, human rights and workers’ rights? I know they are also priorities for Mexico.
In the 2021 integrated review, the Government stated:
“We will deepen our ties with Brazil and Mexico, strengthening partnerships on trade, innovation, climate, security and development”.
How does the Minister think that we can achieve a greater synergy between Mexico’s trade priorities and our own? As we know, Mexico plays a critical role in the region’s geopolitics, so what steps are being taken to make that strategic commitment to Mexico a reality? Why has no prime ministerial trade envoy to Mexico been appointed? Can the Minister account for that? There are so many opportunities for stronger connections and partnerships, and some of my hon. Friends have participated in roles like that and made a real difference. It might be something to consider.
Mexico has significant lithium deposits, and some states reportedly have rare earth resources. As we know, securing a reliable supply chain for these minerals will be even more essential as the UK decarbonises its economy. Under a Labour Government, which we hope to see soon, that will be a still greater priority given our ambition for a rapid shift to green energy and green industries.
Both the UK and Mexico have strong and distinctive drinks industries. I must admit that I am a tequila fan. The UK is the fifth-largest importer of Mexican tequila in the world and, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), Mexico is the seventh-largest export market for Scotch by volume. I also like a Scotch. Surely there is potential to get more economic value from those trading flows for our mutual benefit.
As all Members have noted, there are significant concerns about the rule of law, human rights and insecurity in parts of Mexico. When it comes to our friends and partners, we must have the courage and conviction to speak honestly and frankly on a variety of issues. In response to those concerns, the Government have committed to establish a formal bilateral human rights dialogue with Mexico, which will complement their trade negotiations. I welcome that, but we have sadly not heard when the dialogue will begin, or if it has already begun, and I hope that the Minister will update us on that.
Reconnecting Britain with our partners around the world is a vital objective for the Opposition, and our relationship with Mexico is clearly a high priority within that, so I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that significant progress is being made on strengthening our connections with this important partner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mr Gray, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to him, as everyone else has, for his interest in Mexico and international relations—in particular our partnership with Mexico—and for his sterling work as chair of the APPG, not just for five months or a year or two, but for five years. That shows real commitment, which is much appreciated on both sides of the House.
We are also grateful that Her Excellency the Mexican ambassador is here with us today. She is a formidable, energetic partner and friend. We work hard to try to keep up with her enthusiasm for things to do with the UK and for binding our relationship. We are extraordinarily grateful for the work of her team and for our partnership.
I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made today. I welcome the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) to her place, talking about such matters. I always think of her in relation to other international priorities, but it is great to see her. I also say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for his interest and commitment. He is a good man with a big heart and he will be missed. We all know about reshuffles—you gotta love ’em, but they don’t always go your way. We wish him well and thank him for his work in this area. We also welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) to her role, and look forward to debates with her.
This goes without saying, but I want to say it on the record with full passion and conviction: the UK values our relationship with Mexico enormously. The two countries share deep and historic links. We are looking forward to the future with new and ambitious partnerships based on two most crucial values, democracy and freedom. Today, we have had some great lessons from people with a huge amount of experience in Mexico about our relationship. We look forward to celebrating with Mexico its independence day next week. In fact, I think I am going to the embassy—the ambassador gives me a wink to suggest that that is true. I am looking forward to it. Mexico knows how to have a party, how to celebrate well, and how we can move relationships forward.
Some important points were made about history, not least by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). We are grateful for what he set out about the history and for his reminder to all of us, and anyone who goes to Mexico, that there is more to see beyond the beaches. When I visit Mexico, I never see much of beaches, because I am tied up with meetings, but I can attest that there is a lot more to Mexico than the beaches, which I do not know much about. The relationships between our Parliaments and parliamentarians are important, and I know that the right hon. Member’s relationships with the President, Cabinet and Government have enabled our dialogue and friendship to be fostered. I am grateful to him for that.
The debate has shown that our relationship with Mexico goes well beyond party politics. Across the spectrum, and across the different nations in the UK, it is an important relationship. I will set out why I believe that it is one that we need to put a lot more focus on, as has been said by others.
One thing that has not been mentioned enough is the importance of Cornwall and the Cornish miners who brought their famous pasties—pastes, as they are known in the region—to the mines of Hidalgo in 1825. Now, half a million people travel from the UK to Mexico each year, and 3,000 Mexican students have experienced our fantastic education system through Chevening scholarships. All those things are weaved into our relationship and help to strengthen it. We want to ensure that that relationship gets stronger.
Of course, it goes without saying that those Cornish miners did not only bring pasties; they brought football. Football speaks volumes. Even the hon. Member for West Ham has to agree that Mexicans pack a punch on the football pitch. We are so pleased that Mexico will co-host the World cup in 2026, providing another opportunity for our countries to work together—although we hope that it does not do too well in the competition at our expense.
This debate is also timely because the UK and Mexico are preparing to celebrate the 200th anniversary of our consular relations, which falls next month. We are busy planning a series of activities to celebrate all parts of our relationship, from exploring our shared histories in conversations with historians to cultivating more recent cultural links through art and musical performances. Such activities will showcase the breadth of exchange over 200 years, which has seen our relationship go from strength to strength.
In the past year, our Ministers have been in regular conversation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade visited in February, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the then Foreign Minister in the spring. I received an incredibly warm welcome when I was fortunate enough to travel to Mexico in May. During my visit, I met the Minister responsible for human rights, discussed our bilateral relations and ties with members of the Mexican Congress’s UK-Mexico friendship group—focusing particularly on the free trade agreement—and saw at first hand the impact that our excellent collaboration on climate programmes is having in Guadalajara and elsewhere.
I commend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton on the success of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation that he led to Mexico at the end of last year. Time flies—where is this year going? I am glad that he and other hon. Members had an interesting and productive visit, not just to Mexico City but in Oaxaca.
Mexicans are looking forward to the presidential elections next year. We will work closely with whomever they elect as their new President, to continue our growing relationship. As has been said, this goes beyond party politics; on both sides, this is an important relationship. I know that some comments were made about our relationship and how it should be fostered. I would just like to say, in terms of my experience and the work that we are striving to do—I am sure that this cuts across parties—that it must be based on shared values, shared priorities and mutual benefit. When there is that sort of relationship, built on trust, things will move forward.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. As the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) has only just arrived in the Chamber, I am not sure that that would be appropriate. If the Minister would like to continue—
David Rutley
On this occasion, given that this is a former Foreign Secretary, I think, with your permission, Mr Gray—
James Gray (in the Chair)
No, I do not think so at all. The right hon. Gentleman may be a former Foreign Secretary, but he was not here for the debate; he has just arrived in the Chamber. He may not intervene, and the Minister will continue his winding-up speech.
David Rutley
I bow to your judgment, Mr Gray.
Another key thing in the relationship is about building capacity and building strength on both sides of the relationship. We are absolutely committed to doing that to create a sense of genuine partnership. With existing free trade agreements with 46 countries, and others on the way, Mexico is without a doubt a titan of free trade; and with the second largest economy in Latin America, Mexico’s demand for imports is only set to grow. We look forward to using our bilateral relationship to give fresh opportunities to British businesses across multiple sectors.
I did not agree with absolutely everything that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, but she said many wise things. She may already know this stat, but last year alone, whisky exports were up by 22%. I have to say that, for a teetotaller, I know a lot about the flow of spirits that sees whisky going from one side and tequila the other way. I know that Members here appreciate that.
As we look to this mature trade relationship, there are of course opportunities, particularly in offshore wind and particularly in north-east Scotland. There are huge opportunities across the region, including in north-east Brazil, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) knows as the trade envoy for Brazil, and in Costa Rica and the US. Wherever I go, we talk about this relationship and these opportunities.
The recently signed comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—known as the CPTPP to its friends—presents us with significant opportunities. British businesses will benefit from enhanced access to the Mexican and other markets. Our exporters will enjoy reduced tariffs when selling to Mexico, including on our high-quality beef, pork and apples, and UK consumers will pay less for Mexican products such as honey and chocolate. I say gently to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, because I know that she cares about this, that animal welfare protections are and will continue to be in place. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers have set that out, as I did when I served several years ago as the Minister with responsibility for food.
British businesses will benefit from enhanced market access without a doubt. Our friends in Mexico know how keen I am for them to ratify the UK’s accession to the CPTPP soon. It was the clear focus of my recent visit. Also during that visit, we talked a lot about the third round of negotiations on the UK-Mexico free trade agreement. That will be an important pillar of our relationship, and the opportunities that it will present to develop exports in both directions are huge. We have had three productive rounds of FTA negotiations so far. Both countries are united in their objective to build a bilateral agreement to complement the CPTPP and provide a solid framework in which our bilateral trade relationship can flourish, including by strengthening commitments to support small and medium-sized enterprises, innovation, trade and gender equality. Together with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, I am determined to ensure that the new deal adds value to the UK economy and brings benefits across the country, as well as to our friends in Mexico.
I very much hope that more UK companies will take up the trade opportunities that anybody who goes to Mexico will see. When I was in Guadalajara, I was able to understand more about the benefits that Diageo and AstraZeneca see in that great city. With Mexico’s increasing expertise in advanced manufacturing, the opportunities for friendshoring and closer relationships should be clear to all. We need to ensure that those opportunities are made fully available to UK companies and bring them to Mexico.
There were a few references to a potential trade envoy to Mexico. I know that that issue has been raised on a few occasions. The Government continue to review countries where such an appointment would be of greatest benefit. Obviously, the ultimate decision is for the Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North does an outstanding job in Brazil, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) does an amazing job in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Peru. The comments made today have been fully noted, and I am sure that the work that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton has done will be noted in any conversations or decisions about this particular opportunity.
We recognise that in a debate about Mexico it is important to address and acknowledge the complex issues of human rights. That has been a concern in the country for many years, and it continues to be an area of focus. I recognise the important work of our ambassador, Jon Benjamin, who has been referenced by many people in this debate. He has a principled, patient and passionate stance, which is exemplary, and he is seeking to engage at the appropriate levels in Mexico. There is no question but that it is a dangerous country in which to be an environmental activist or a journalist.
Jeremy Corbyn
On the question of human rights, I assume from what the Minister said that the continuing trade discussions with Mexico will include a human rights dialogue. Will he also give a commitment that the Government will remain supportive of the family of Claudia Uruchurtu and their needs in her case, not just for her but as an example of our willingness to support people who are trying to bring about human rights and justice? There are concerns that the mayor who was imprisoned after Claudia’s disappearance, Lizbeth Victoria Huerta, may well be released at the end of September, because she was not charged, in my view, with a sufficiently severe case put against her. There are concerns about the safety of the family as a result.
David Rutley
As far as the free trade agreement goes, obviously those conversations—that dialogue—will be moved forward. Human rights in our relationship with Mexico are being dealt with in a different track, and I will come on to that in a minute in terms of a formal human rights dialogue. I will also mention the case that the right hon. Gentleman talked about. All those points are important.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about the recognition of disappearances—111,000 since records began in 1964. Each of those disappearances is a tragedy. That is absolutely clear to me, as I met the mothers, siblings and relatives of victims when I was in Guadalajara. Our commitment to the promotion of universal human rights is unwavering. We regularly raise our concerns about abuses and levels of impunity with the Mexican Government, at both ministerial and official level. We continue to work with Mexican federal and state governments in support of work to develop the rule of law. For example, we recently supported the development of a new investigation protocol, which is a framework based on UK best practice that sets out how a crime should be investigated. It is in part due to the work of our embassy that that has now been adopted in 32 states in Mexico. That is a great step forward.
The right hon. Member for Islington North mentioned the tragic case of Claudia Uruchurtu, who tragically disappeared in 2021 as she protested against corruption in Oaxaca. The convictions of those involved in her disappearance are a welcome and important step in achieving justice for her and her family, but I say to the right hon. Member that we continue to monitor the case very closely.
I welcome the interest shown by the Mexican Government in holding a bilateral formal human rights dialogue with the UK, which we hope will take place later this year. I discussed that in depth when I met the human rights Minister in May, and we are in close conversation with Mexico on how best to use a dialogue to discuss our shared human rights priorities, both in multilateral forums and bilaterally.
As I mentioned, the UK and Mexico share core values. The quality of our work together was very much in evidence during Mexico’s most recent period on the UN Security Council in 2021 and 2022, and our shared voting record of 98% speaks volumes.
We also we celebrate Mexico’s work in progressing gender equality globally. Together with the UK, Mexico has been at the forefront in leading that important work. We continue to work closely together in the UN and through excellent projects with the British embassy, such as training for public and private sector organisations on reducing the gender pay gap.
The right hon. Member for Islington North and the hon. Member for West Ham talked about what we are doing more widely in the region, beyond Mexico. All I can say is that I have been enormously privileged over the past 10 months or so to travel to around 22 countries in the Americas. I think that we all agree that the way to build relationships of trust—I know that everyone who has spoken in today’s debate is passionate about that, because I observe them to do that in their lives as well—is face to face, not on a screen. I have visited just about every country in central America, with the exception of Nicaragua; I returned from Belize this morning. We want to move things forward in our relationship there through the UK-central America association agreement, and on climate change through the biodiverse landscape fund. There is a positive agenda, and we have a role to play in central America.
I could bore hon. Members for another hour or so about the opportunities for trade in Latin America more widely, but you would not allow me to do that, Mr Gray. There are huge opportunities. The hon. Member for West Ham says that she wants to expand her knowledge about Latin America. Well, she has already pointed out the most important thing, which is that the opportunities to trade there are immense, and we need to encourage more businesses to look at those opportunities and explore them in a meaningful way.
I will conclude by stressing again just how much our relationship with Mexico offers to both our countries; we have a like-minded partner in trade, in the multilateral space, and in our support for a rules-based international system. The UK was the first European power to recognise an independent Mexico—historians will attest to that—and in the 200 years that have followed, our trade, diplomatic and people-to-people links have grown. As our relationship grows, its benefits multiply.
As we look forward to the bicentenary of the relationship between our two remarkable countries, I am sure that hon. Members will agree how exciting it is to see our association and connection with Mexico prospering, and I am sure that they will be as ambitious as I am in wanting to see it continue to prosper over the two centuries ahead.
Dan Carden
I am delighted that we had the opportunity for this debate and to hear that there is real expertise on Mexico and on the relationship between the UK and Mexico. I thank the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) for his support over the last few months and engaging with issues in the region. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who has such a fascinating history, as well as a relationship with the current President of Mexico, which, as the Minister graciously said, is such a benefit to the UK and our relationship. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s attendance today.
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her contribution on the special relationship between Scotland and Mexico, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), who was covering today but I think is eager to get to Mexico in the years ahead.
Dan Carden
As the Minister said, I was able to visit Mexico last November through the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It was a brilliant visit. We were able to have meetings in the Congress, including in the Senate, and to meet the Mayor of Mexico City, Claudia Sheinbaum, who is now a presidential candidate. We watch her progress with interest. We also went to Oaxaca, which is a beautiful state, and visited Monte Albán, one of the heritage sites that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North talked about. Those ancient civilisations are a great part of Mexican history.
Mexico is an awe-inspiring country. It has its challenges; there is no doubt that there is a human rights crisis in Mexico, but it offers opportunities for Mexico’s allies, such as us, to work with it. The Minister talked about our ability to share our expertise on the rule of law. I would love to see the Government do more of that with Mexico. I know that if we have a strong developing relationship between the UK and Mexico then we can support it in those areas. We also have a lot to learn from Mexico. Our voting records at the UN show that the values of the British people and the Mexican people—and hopefully its Governments, for a long time to come—are shared. That is why the relationship is one that we can cherish and develop, and one that can be strong going forward.
Let me finish by paying tribute once again to both ambassadors: my friend Jon Benjamin in Mexico City, and Josefa González Blanco, who joins us in the Public Gallery today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK’s relationship with Mexico.
Tax-free Shopping for International Visitors
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tax-free shopping for international visitors.
I thank you, Dr Huq, and Mr Speaker very much for granting me this opportunity to bring before the House the important subject of tax-free shopping—both VAT reclaim and duty-free shopping—for international visitors to this country. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister, to whom I am grateful for turning up on this hot afternoon when I am sure she would much rather be doing something else. I am delighted to have the support of colleagues from throughout the country on this campaign. Of course, this issue affects not only London—it affects London greatly—but cities and tourist hubs across the UK, shopping destinations, cultural venues and the major regional airports.
This is an important debate on an issue I have campaigned on for the past few years following the Government’s decision to end tax-free shopping for international visitors when we left the EU. We are now the only major European country that does not have tax-free shopping, and the British economy is missing out as a result. In fact, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation barometer shows that Britain’s post-pandemic recovery in visitor numbers is the worst of all major European countries.
It is important at the start of the debate to respond to the idea that such a scheme would not benefit the British people. A study by Oxford Economics showed that restoring tax-free shopping would directly create a staggering 78,000 new jobs up and down the UK, possibly add as much as £4.1 billion to UK GDP, and result in—we believe—a net positive £350 million each year for His Majesty’s Treasury. In my speech, I will go into more detail and examine what the data suggests on the opportunities for economic growth from reintroducing tax-free shopping and VAT reclaim for foreign visitors.
Before we review the figures, I make it clear that my sole ask today of my hon. Friend, which I have to say would be almost cost-free, is for the Treasury to commission an independent assessment through the Office for Budget Responsibility or a respected audit firm—so that the Treasury believes it when it gets the results—of the full economic effect of tax-free shopping on the UK figures and all the figures that are available.
I believe the Government’s current position is based on inaccurate and incomplete Treasury figures that say that the cost of tax-free shopping would be £2 billion a year in refunded VAT. To highlight briefly how inaccurate those figures are, that calculation was reached by overestimating VAT refunds to UK shoppers by £600 million and excluding any tax revenue from increased spending by extra tourists. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider their objections to tax-free shopping which, as I say, I believe are based on inaccurate figures. We need an independent review to consider the topic so that we do not miss out on what could be a hugely positive and almost instantaneous win for the UK economy.
On 31 December 2020, the UK ended its tax-free shopping schemes for non-EU visitors and did not extend the schemes to EU visitors after the UK left the EU. The Government’s reasoning for that decision was the estimated cost of extending tax-free shopping to EU residents. Incidentally, all EU countries refund VAT on goods purchased by non-EU visitors—those visitors get the VAT refunded on purchases on the high streets and at duty-free shops in airports. Critically, Britain is therefore now 20% more expensive for shopping than any EU destination.
As we know, the entire economy was badly hit by the covid-19 pandemic and the wide shutdown of society during lockdown. Some of our hardest-hit industries were the tourism, culture and leisure, and hospitality sectors, which, owing to the very nature of their businesses, were unable to adapt easily to the hard lockdown rules, the impact of international restrictions, and reduced travel and tourism.
Now, thankfully, the pandemic is over. We have seen tourists return to the UK to enjoy the cultural sites in London, travel to our other great cities across our great country, and visit our picturesque towns and villages—including tens of thousands of visitors, I am glad to say, to my constituency of the Cotswolds. Sadly, however, our tourist industry recovery has not been as strong as that of some of our European neighbours.
All the real trading data from 2022, as international travel resumed, consistently undermines the Treasury’s forecast, which is that tax-free shopping would have little impact on visitor numbers and spending. The actual data on visitor numbers from 2022 and early 2023 show that ending tax-free shopping has had a significant negative impact on the behaviour of international travellers. Many choose to visit the UK, but unfortunately the really high spenders travel to Europe, because it is 20% cheaper to do their luxury goods shopping there.
For example, in 2022, spending by US visitors to the UK was back to pre-2019 pandemic levels, but in France, Spain and Italy it was double. In quarter 1 of 2023, US visitor spending was still just at 2019 levels in the UK, but in France and Spain it was around three times as much as 2019. Unfortunately, the differential is widening. Similarly, spending by Gulf Co-operation Council visitors to the UK in 2022 was around 65% of 2019 levels, whereas in Italy and Spain it was one and a half times the 2019 levels and in France it was double.
Brexit was an opportunity to create change in our economy that truly benefits the UK—creating new opportunities for growth for our innovative and internationally renowned retail, tourism and hospitality sectors. Instead, the EU is enjoying a Brexit bonus at Britain’s expense. Unfortunately, we have a double whammy: British shoppers joining other international visitors to shop tax-free in the EU, not in the UK, but not the same level of increased spending here as in other European countries. British shoppers now spend £1 billion on shopping tax-free in the EU, not here. If tax-free shopping was reinstated, Britain would be the only major European economy where 447 million EU residents could shop tax-free, which would create a huge new tourist market. Britain is missing out on a £1 billion Brexit bonus—a real opportunity for Brexit growth.
HMT did not forecast that that many visitors would be diverted completely from visiting the UK in favour of EU destinations. At the Government’s request, many businesses submitted actual evidence to HMT, in confidence, on the impact of ending tax-free shopping. The submissions show without a doubt that British businesses have suffered hundreds of millions of pounds in lost sales since 2022, and they see it getting worse, as more and more international travellers realise that they cannot shop tax-free in Britain.
In June 2023, the business improvement district for London’s west end, the New West End Company, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) knows well, surveyed its member businesses. More than half—54%—said that they were reviewing their long-term capital investment programmes to take account of the fall in the relative performance of their west end stores compared with their stores in continental Europe. More than one fifth—22%—are considering closing their London stores and relocating to mainland Europe. That is an example of how the UK is losing out.
HM Treasury forecasts that allowing 415 million EU residents to shop tax-free in Britain would generate only 50,000 additional trips annually—0.2% of the 24 million EU visitors in 2019. By the same logic, 66 million British residents now being able to shop tax-free in the EU would generate only an additional 9,000 trips. That is simply not credible. The reality is that in 2022 around 48,000 British people claimed VAT refunds in the EU, worth more than half a billion pounds. In 2023, that figure has more than doubled. We estimate that more than 1 million British residents will spend more than £1 billion on tax-free shopping in the EU, but not in the UK. That is one more proof that the Treasury has out-of-date forecasts.
On 3 August, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), I co-signed a letter to the Chancellor highlighting the most recent forecasting report from leading economics consultancy Cebr, the Centre for Economics and Business Research. Its figures were built on an earlier study by Oxford Economics. The two reports were staggering. Cebr forecast additional visitor numbers of between 1.6 million and 1.7 million into this country if the measures were reinstalled, and increased spending of £1.7 billion to £2.8 billion. They each forecast that the GDP of the UK could increase by between £4.1 billion and £9.1 billion annually.
I note that the Treasury forecast is just an extra 50,000 visitors. The slight difference between the data of the Oxford Economics and Cebr forecasts is due to timing, with the former’s report released in October 2022 and the latter’s published in July 2023. However, we now have real consumer behaviour and spending data. By contrast with the up-to-date findings from Cebr, the Treasury’s own figures, on which the Government are making their decisions, come from 2020 estimates. I say to the Minister that the data is quite out of date and so low that it considerably reduces the estimate for visitor numbers and spend.
The Minister recently wrote to me saying that the Government were concerned that the findings of the Oxford Economics study did not match those of the OBR, particularly on the expected number of visitors as a result of introducing tax-free shopping. As I just said, the Oxford Economics forecast is an extra 1.6 million visitors, whereas the OBR forecast is 50,000. However, the Oxford Economics forecasts are being proved right by the real data from businesses that is now coming in, and the OBR figure is being proved significantly wrong.
All the data coming in clearly shows that the reason why the Treasury does not recognise the figure from Oxford Economics is not because the Oxford Economics forecast is wrong but because the OBR forecast is out of date. The Government are understandably acting on figures from the Treasury that they deem to be reliable. To assess the figures and bring some finality to the debate, I wrote to the OBR in May asking whether it could examine the costings and benefits related to tax-free shopping, both for VAT reclaim and duty-free shopping. Unfortunately, I am yet to receive a full response.
Chinese travellers are the biggest spenders of all, and in the last year Chinese visitors spent $258 billion—almost twice as much as visitors from the USA, who are the second biggest spenders at $135 billion—and they have the biggest potential for growth in the UK. Shopping is their No. 1 priority. Ending tax-free shopping in Britain is closing the door on the most important market for the international visitor economy. From 2009 to 2019, I was heavily involved in growing the number of Chinese visitors to the UK from 130,000 to 800,000, which is almost as many as France has. It was largely due to that increase in high-spending Chinese visitors that overall international spending pre-pandemic increased by 60%, from £17.6 billion to £26.4 billion.
The figures are significant. In 2019, some 800,000 Chinese visitors made up 5% of the 16 million non-EU visitors to the UK, but accounted for a staggering 32% of all tax-free shopping in the UK, spending around £1 billion. Of course, the Chinese were not travelling in 2022 because they were still locked down, but a survey of Chinese who had previously shopped in Europe showed that Britain had dropped from the second favourite European destination in 2019, just below France, to the least popular of all major European countries. In 2022, 75% visited France but only a tiny 42% visited the UK.
The Minister has quite rightly been asking for real evidence on the ground; I will give it to her now. Evidence from Heathrow airport shows that Chinese visitor numbers in July 2023 were at 88% of their 2019 levels, but spending in the shops at Heathrow was at just 33%. The Chinese are coming to the UK, but they are not spending money without the option of VAT reclaim.
There is a common perception that tax-free shopping affects only Oxford Street, Bond Street and the west end; however, this issue affects the whole United Kingdom. That is why the campaign has such wide and growing support, not just from colleagues throughout the country in this House but from major airports, hoteliers, cultural institutions and companies. The amounts spent outside London are significant for local economies—for example, Edinburgh, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Leeds together accounted for £225 million of tax-free sales in 2019.
The direct impact of all this is on retail sales, but there is also a wider impact on hospitality, culture, leisure and manufacturing. Here is another real example: in its annual report, the Dorchester hotel group reported that its Paris hotel was overperforming and its London one was underperforming as a direct result of the end of tax-free shopping. The Royal Opera House, Shakespeare’s Globe, west end theatres and Rank casinos have all publicly criticised the ending of tax-free shopping.
International travellers buy more goods from brands in the countries they are visiting, so British brands such as Mulberry, Burberry and Church’s shoes suffer the most. Mulberry has already had to close its flagship Bond Street store, which it blames solely on the end of tax-free shopping. Just imagine that: Mulberry, after all those years on Bond Street, is having to close. That has an impact on its London stores but also on the manufacturing plants and jobs throughout the UK that depend on the shops that are closing. Burberry manufactures in the north-east, Mulberry manufactures in the south-west and Church’s shoes manufactures in the east midlands, so support from across the country has been submitted in this campaign, demonstrating the real impact of the removal of tax-free shopping.
Just a few case studies include National Museums Scotland’s shop, Essential Edinburgh, Edinburgh Tourism Action Group, Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, Marketing Manchester, North West Business Leadership Team and businesses including Johnstons of Elgin, Church & Co, Boodles and Samsonite. The estimated loss of revenue and jobs will affect regional airports as well as manufacturing in factories in Blyth, Yorkshire and Somerset and high-value shopping areas such as Edinburgh, Dundee, London, Manchester and Leeds.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary kindly responded to my letter to the Chancellor yesterday to say that the Government are accepting evidence—I welcome that openness and thank her for that—to inform their policymaking on this issue and ensure that the Treasury has the latest data on the impact of the removal of the VAT retail export scheme. I hope that she and other colleagues will find that this debate adds to the compelling case for tax-free shopping for international visitors.
With all the real-world data emerging by the day showing that HMT’s forecasts are out of data, we urgently need the independent assessment that I referred to earlier on the full impact of tax-free shopping on the UK economy and its tax revenues. I say this to my hon. Friend the Minister: if an independent assessment shows that the full tax impact is either neutral or net positive, the Government must move quickly to restore tax-free shopping before more damage is done to the UK economy. If such a study proves that the Treasury’s figures of £2 billion costs are correct, I will happily accept that and go away and not be a nuisance to her.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
International visitors pay VAT when they stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, drink in bars and go to the theatre, so the independent review must look not just at retail but at the possible VAT revenue that the Treasury would receive if there were more international visitors coming here to shop.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. This is what the Treasury figures do not cover at the moment. It is not just the VAT reclaimed; it is the VAT paid on all the other items, such as meals in hotels. And it is not just VAT: it is corporation tax, air passenger duty and a range of other duties that will be brought into the Treasury. That is where the figure of £350 million—our estimate—comes from, so my hon. Friend makes a really important point.
You will be glad to know I am coming to a conclusion, Dr Huq. The Treasury’s figures are based on the wrong methodology that does not consider in full the major upside for the country. I make an urgent plea today to the Financial Secretary. It is time that the OBR or another audit firm did a proper investigation into all the figures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, instead of sticking to the figures that were produced for it in 2020. If it proves that the Treasury figures are correct, so be it. But if, as so many experts and businesses believe, there is considerable economic gain from introducing tax-free shopping, it would be an utter tragedy not to do so. Let us consider the real opportunity for growth and invigorate our economy by introducing tax-free shopping for tourists who come to this country.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for securing this important debate. As the Member of Parliament for Cities of London and Westminster, the issue is incredibly important to the economy of my constituency.
International visitors are the lifeblood of so many businesses in areas such as Knightsbridge and the west end, including iconic streets such as Oxford Street, Bond Street and Regent Street. Retail in the two cities accounts for over 4,000 businesses employing approximately 55,000 employees. World famous department stores such as Selfridges and Liberty, as well as the luxury brands along Regent Street and Bond Street, rely on international visitors from China, India, the USA and the middle east. I highlight visitors from those countries and regions because visitors from those areas spend on average 60% more than EU visitors. But of course we are also currently disincentivising visitors from both outside and inside the EU.
Visitors from India and the middle east consistently list shopping as the No. 1 reason for visiting London, according to VisitBritain. Visitors from those areas also state that the tax rate is a consideration when they decide where they wish to travel and how much they are willing to spend when they travel.
I know the Government are committed to supporting retail businesses of all sizes. I thank the Minister for her Department’s strong support over the challenging couple of years that we have endured during the pandemic, but now is the time to kickstart the regrowth of our high streets. She will recognise that reintroducing tax-free shopping would be a boost to the businesses that suffered most in the pandemic as their physical stores were forced to shut and tourists were not allowed to travel.
Many of the luxury brands that visitors love to buy in the shops in my constituency have factories based in the United Kingdom, creating skilled jobs and supporting great British manufacturing. For example, Burberry’s iconic trench coats are handmade in Castleford in Yorkshire.
As a Conservative, I believe strongly in the growth potential of cutting taxes. Tax-free shopping for international visitors is a perfect example of when cutting a tax rate will increase the total amount of taxable spending. It goes back to the point that I made earlier: when we consider how much tax revenue that international visitors bring in, the issue is not just about shopping. We should take tax away from shopping and allow people to claim back tax on it. They are spending millions, probably billions, of pounds. They probably spend more money on the theatre, restaurants, drinking in our bars and going to other tourist attractions and paying VAT on that. That is why I would ask for an independent review of the whole situation in which we look at VAT and other taxes, including national insurance for the increased number of employees we will have if we want to grow our economy. We want to grow our hospitality sector and our leisure and tourism sector. Those are real jobs. Companies pay corporation tax and employee tax.
I truly believe that re-introducing tax-free shopping will provide a much-needed boost to a wide range of businesses across a number of sectors. This is borne out of new research from Oxford Economics and the Association of International Retail that clearly demonstrates that the tax receipts we will take from these connector sectors will far exceed the revenue lost by offering VAT exemptions on visitor shopping. By offering a VAT exemption, we will reverse the trend we have seen since the abolition of tax-free shopping, where international visitors have been choosing to go to Paris instead. UK international arrivals are down 22% since 2019. The pandemic has obviously had an impact, but France’s visitor figures are down by only 12.7%.
I suspect that one of the reasons for the discrepancy is that EU countries still offer tax-free shopping for international visitors. I believe that the French actually improved their tax-free shopping offer for international visitors once we got rid of ours. That shows how important it is to attract visitors into the country—and the French realise this. We know that these visitors are spending less in the UK compared with other European countries. In 2022, spending by visitors in the UK from the US was at 101% of 2019 levels, but in France it was a staggering 226% of 2019 levels. It is obvious that we must do all we can to ensure that London remains the No. 1 destination for international visitors.
Let us not forget that when international visitors come here, they come to London—it is obviously a huge draw to go to the capital city of a country—but they also go elsewhere. They go to Edinburgh, to Inverness to see if they can find Nessie, to York, to Oxford and, of course, to the beautiful Cotswolds. Reintroducing tax-free shopping will lead to more international visitors enjoying the rest of the United Kingdom and the home nations. Since taking away tax-free shopping for international visitors, the number of days that people are coming here for has reduced. People come to London from all over the world, but now, rather than staying for four or five days, they stay for two or three days and then take the Eurostar to Paris to do their shopping. That is what we need to stop. We need to ensure that people come here to enjoy London and the rest of the United Kingdom and to shop here too.
We must reintroduce tax-free shopping. London is one of a small handful of global cities, and I fear that losing tax-free shopping is damaging our reputation as a global city. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds mentioned, the Oxford Economics study predicted that by offering tax-free shopping, we could attract more than 1.6 million extra visitors to the UK every year, stimulating an extra £2.8 billion in tourist spending overall. Think about the tax revenue that we could get from VAT on all the other money they spend here. We must not underestimate the huge impact these extra visitors have on the spending in our wider economy, not just in my constituency but across the United Kingdom. I do believe that it was one of the big attractions when people came here.
The key point is that people do not just spend their money on clothes, or jewellery or watches. They spend money in the restaurants they dine in and in the black cabs they take—I checked earlier, and people have to pay VAT on black cabs, so the cabbies should be supporting our campaign here. People also go to theatres and clubs. They spend money across so many sectors.
I know from speaking to restauranteurs, theatre owners and other stakeholders, such as UKHospitality, that they are all united in wanting tax-free shopping for international visitors to be reinstated. Many of these businesses tell me that they are struggling to get back to their pre-pandemic levels of business and believe that a large part of that is a reduction in foreign visitors, who are preferring to go to Paris or Milan.
The Cities of London and Westminster can be seen as a jigsaw in many ways. The hotels, restaurants, shops, bars, cafés and theatres fit together neatly as an impressive tourist offer. Tax-free shopping has become the missing piece of that jigsaw. If it is returned, it will benefit not just my constituency and retailers, but thousands upon thousands of businesses across this country. That is why I call on the Government to review the whole situation and consider reintroducing tax-free shopping for all international visitors from the EU and outside it.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I take this opportunity to sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) not only on securing the debate, but on his persistence on this issue. The first time that he and I spoke at the same time on this issue was in a debate on 10 December 2020. I think he only had three minutes on that particular occasion—it was quite a well-subscribed debate on the future of the high street—so it was a great pleasure to hear him expand those arguments today because I am sorry to say that the essential logic of many of the arguments being made on that day has not changed. In removing tax-free shopping on 1 January 2021, the Treasury seemed to make two key assumptions. The first was that ending tax-free shopping would have no significant impact, or so it thought, on foreign visitor numbers or spend in the UK, whether in terms of choosing to come to the UK or spending once they were in the UK. The second assumption seemed to be that extending tax-free shopping to EU resident visitors would attract few additional visitors to the UK.
There has been lots of logic—not to say economic coherence—missing from some recent budgets, which we are all still paying the price for. However, even taking those Treasury arguments at face value, there is a logical flaw that the presence of tax-free shopping was not always necessarily about attracting additional visitors, although I believe that it does do that, but about not losing them to other areas. The main locations, according to the Treasury, that benefited from it were central London and Bicester Village. It is probably hard to argue with the volume of sales there, but, as has been said, many other locations around the UK benefited too, including many in Scotland. Of course, those were only the areas where sales were recorded, and it does not show the economic activity that otherwise might not have taken place if people had not been attracted here in the first place.
This is of particular significance on a couple of levels to Scotland, but particularly to rural Scotland, where tourism, hospitality, transport and the production of luxury clothing are significant contributors to the local economy. In addition, the whisky and spirit distilling industry is of great significance to not only the locations where it is based and the high-value employment that it creates, but the Treasury’s coffers in terms of the overall duties it pays.
We now have data to set against the Treasury’s theory, and the results are in. The data appears to indicate that lots of pent-up spend was available. US tourists are spending about the same in the UK in 2022 as they were in 2019. The Treasury says that is a sign of success in terms of tax receipts, but US visitors are now spending three times more in Spain, Italy and France than they were in 2019. The Treasury also forecast that only 50,000 additional EU visitors might be tempted to come to the UK if they could shop tax free, yet 170,000 UK citizens were claiming tax back from the EU in 2022, which is likely to rise to almost 400,000 in the current year. If we take that figure pro rata and apply it to the EU population, that 50,000 would be 2 million in 2023—we are missing out on 40 times the Treasury’s forecast in terms of people coming to the UK to spend. That real-life data seems to undermine the forecasts.
The impact is on not only retailers, but hospitality, travel and indigenous producers who manufacture the goods being sold in the first place. The usual reaction of many tourists on getting a VAT rebate is to go and spend it immediately where they are—I find that hard to believe, but who am I to argue with observed human behaviour in the real world? So there would be a double benefit, in that the Treasury would get most of it back. The result would be a double-whammy—not just to the Treasury, but to the retailers and producers of these goods. What we are really doing is simply exporting those sales to other countries; in fact, that seems to be one of the few areas where exports seem to be very much up as a result of the Government’s economic policies.
The hon. Member for The Cotswolds described the return of tax-free shopping as a Brexit bonus, but I part company from him there. As with the Windsor framework in Northern Ireland, it would only bring us back to the situation that we were all collectively in prior to Brexit and the Treasury decision. We could still offer tax-free shopping even as part of the European Union; Brexit ought to neither here nor there.
It is not as if the Prime Minister is unaware of the issue; he was still the Chancellor when the decision was taken. But he has certainly had a reminder during his time as Prime Minister. The firm Burberry was mentioned earlier. Gerry Murphy, the chairman of Burberry, was introducing the Prime Minister at a Business Connect event in April this year. He took the opportunity to deliver a few home truths in warning the Prime Minister of the somewhat perverse decision to remove VAT refunds, and said that that had hurt the economy. He said that it had
“made the UK the least attractive shopping destination in Europe”,
noting that virtually every other major destination still offers VAT refunds and that for Burberry the recovery from the covid-19 pandemic was much stronger in Paris, Milan and Munich—all, like London, prime locations for tourism. He called on the Prime Minister and Chancellor to rethink their spectacular own goal, warning that Brexit was acting in that regard as a drag on growth.
Given that Aberdeen airport is in my constituency, it would be remiss of me not to include a pitch for the impact that the issue has on regional airports. Shopping comprises about 45% on average of the revenues that regional airports take in. That revenue is absolutely vital in keeping airports going and route development for the benefit of the area. Aberdeen is, of course, synonymous with the oil and gas sector, so Aberdeen airport has a strategic importance out of all proportion to the area that it serves simply because of how it serves that location and those key industries.
I speak regularly with management at the airport. Every time I visit, they tell me that they are losing sales hand over fist—to Norway, Spain, the Republic of Ireland and France: all the locations to which Aberdeen has a direct air connection—because of the decision. In actual fact that spend should be taking place, providing employment in my constituency and allowing the airport to develop routes. It should also be allowing us to get an economic benefit that, although not directly connected, is tangentially related to the benefits that come from tax-free shopping, which can allow the economy to develop in so many other areas and enable wider connectivity to Europe and the rest of the world. The policy is very much to the detriment of not only the operation of regional airports such as Aberdeen but the surrounding tourist and business economy.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, but I say to the Minister that in an earlier exchange this week she undertook to make inquiries about a matter that I raised in the main Chamber. I was very pleased with that response and I hope that, in a similar vein, she will also look very favourably on the very reasonable asks made today by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds to encourage the Treasury to commission research to inform Ministers. That, hopefully, will lead them to a different conclusion about this matter.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
For His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I call the shadow Minister, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this debate on tax-free shopping for international visitors. On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition and as a shadow Treasury Minister, I am absolutely thrilled to respond to the debate. I do so for the very first time in my new role as shadow Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, so no doubt hon. Members will be very kind to me today, Dr Huq.
As hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), eloquently made clear, the publication of official independent statistics on this issue commissioned by the Government is long overdue. Manifestly, businesses across our country—although there is a special need for those concentrated close to our airports and in visitor hotspots—need a supportive and stable Government able to provide certainty for the future. Stability and certainty are crucial to enable businesses to plan, invest and grow, but when it comes to tax-free shopping—the arrangement whereby products that are bought here but not consumed here are ultimately VAT-free—the uncomfortable truth for the Government is that Ministers changed course on this policy twice in the space of two months last autumn.
The Prime Minister, when he was the Chancellor, ended VAT-free shopping for tourists in 2021. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who became Chancellor, promised in September 2022 to reinstate it, as part of his disastrous mini-Budget. Weeks later, as the musical chairs to become Chancellor continued, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) came in as Chancellor and performed another U-turn: tax-free shopping was again off the table. No sooner had one Conservative Chancellor marched businesses all the way to the top of the hill than the next one marched them all the way back down again. The country will not forget the worry and pain that began nearly one year ago with a Tory mini-Budget that crashed our economy, led to interest rates rising, and caused lasting damage for households and businesses. The reversal of the disastrous mini-Budget was necessary, of course, but businesses affected by the U-turn have been left understandably frustrated by changes and decisions made in haste.
We in the Opposition have been listening carefully to the concerns of those calling for VAT-free shopping to be reinstated, but at a time when the nation is having to navigate its way through multiple Tory Government-induced crises, we do not believe that reinstating tax-free shopping for international visitors should be a priority for the use of the billions of pounds of public money. Nevertheless, although we are not calling for VAT-free shopping to be reinstated, we firmly believe that retail and hospitality businesses, particularly those concentrated on our high streets, need support from the Government.
That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor, has set out, Labour is committed to reviving Britain’s high streets by replacing the current system of business rates with a new and reformed system that is fit for the modern day. Businesses on our high street provide essential services to people across the country and make a significant contribution to the Exchequer. They are not just places to buy things we need, but an important part of where we live, work and go about our daily lives. Their success is a key part of our mission to secure for the UK the highest sustained economic growth in the G7.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary for giving way. I did not realise he had just been promoted, so I congratulate him on his new post. For understandable reasons, he is not committing to restore tourist tax-free shopping, but would he support my plea to the Minister that we should have a proper independent examination of all the figures to prove whether it would be a tax benefit, neutral or negative for this country, so that we can make informed decisions?
Mr Dhesi
As I mentioned earlier, it is imperative that those official, independent and highly regarded statistics commissioned by the Government are there for all to see, for the sake of transparency. However, we feel that at a time when we have the highest recorded waiting lists for the NHS, the biggest tax burden and drop in disposable income since the second world war, and many other crises besides, this cannot be a priority for what I hope will be the incoming Labour Government—touch wood.
We will support businesses, create jobs and increase productivity across every part of our country. A Labour Government will keep listening to and working with businesses as we set about making the tax system fairer and providing the stability and certainty that businesses so desperately need.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. It is the first time I have done so, and I am delighted to be chaired so well.
I welcome the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) to his place. It is a pleasure to see him there and I look forward to our doing battle over the Dispatch Box in the coming months. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for securing today’s discussion. He is an assiduous advocate on the issue, and his speech showed the great care and thought that he has put into it. I genuinely thank him for his speech, as I do my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken); I will be dealing with some of her points later.
I hope the House will forgive me if I start with some points of clarification. I have said in this Chamber before that in the very complex world of tax law, VAT is the most complicated area; it is also the most litigious. When the Treasury or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs faces litigation on VAT rules and their interpretation, the organisation can often bear millions of pounds of risk on behalf of the taxpayer on a single word in a piece of legislation. That is why I am going to be very particular about the terminology. I am conscious that lots of people will be paying great interest, and it is important that we get the terminology right.
The phrase VAT-free shopping can be used in the context of this debate, but for the avoidance of doubt, for those acts of shopping by tourists there will often be taxes and duties payable on their purchases on their return to their home country. We are focusing on what is actually called the VAT retail export scheme—VAT RES for short. I note that airside tax-free shopping is also in scope, but it has not been raised so I will not trouble the House with it. VAT RES is still available for all non-UK visitors who purchase items in store and have them delivered to their overseas address, which many shoppers would rather do than have to take them all home in their luggage. It also applies to overseas shoppers who buy online and have items delivered, so they can support British businesses from far afield.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I anticipated that my hon. Friend would raise that—in fact, I nearly put it in my speech to stop her doing so. The proportion of people who want to reclaim the tax and have goods delivered—let us think of, say, a Chinese person visiting this country—is minute compared with the proportion who shop in this country and then physically reclaim the VAT and go home. So while that scheme is available, it is very little used.
Victoria Atkins
In fairness, it may be that people do not know that it is available. I do not know whether shops or brands advertise it to their customers. If a consumer is buying a larger item, they may think it much more convenient to have it sent home. The scheme is available should shoppers wish to make the savings described in the debate.
I acknowledge this has not been the case today, but some people call the current situation a “tourist tax”. Again, that is not correct, because the change in the law that happened a couple of years ago means that we simply expect overseas tourists to pay the same amount of tax as British people do when making a purchase, especially when so many countries—including some of the alternative shopping destinations that can be mentioned—do impose a genuine tourist tax on their visitors. So please let us not refer to it in that way, because that would not be correct.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds understandably referred to a 20% saving from such VAT refunds, but that assumes that shoppers receive all the VAT back. In reality, we know that the companies processing refunds, who are sometimes the retailers themselves, charge significant administrative fees for the service. Indeed, one third of VAT RES users surveyed by HMRC were charged more than 50% of their refund in fees, and the average was 36%, so the savings to the consumer may be far less than the 20% rate of VAT.
To try to set in context the environment in which I am considering this request—alongside many others—since we voted to leave the European Union in 2016, the Treasury has received some £50 billion-worth of helpful suggestions and requests for products or items that should be zero-rated or have VAT relief applied to them. Cases are made in different debates on different subject matters where we are asked to make VAT relief decisions. Of course, VAT remains our third most productive tax in the UK, and it helps to support many of the public services that we all care so deeply about. Those are serious considerations that we must take into account for any request for VAT relief that we receive.
I completely understand the intentions behind my hon. Friend’s work—indeed, I commend him on it—and I share his wish to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to visit and that support for our retail sector and high streets is strengthened. Both intentions and aspirations are shared across the Government. Therefore, if I may, I will take a couple of moments to help the House understand what we have done to achieve exactly that.
Through VisitBritain and the GREAT campaign, we have invested significantly in marketing the UK both domestically and internationally to stimulate demand and support recovery. According to updated forecasts from VisitBritain, there are due to be 37.5 million visits to the UK this year, which is some 92% of the level seen in 2019 before the pandemic, and inbound visitor spending is forecast to be £30.9 billion, which is up 9%. Those updates follow the stronger recovery we are seeing, with spending by American visitors up 42% to a record £6 billion last year alone. Sadly, international visitor numbers are still below 2019 levels for all G7 members and large European countries in 2022 and 2023, but of course that comes against the backdrop of the UK economy doing much better than was forecast over the last year or so, as we saw really encouraging growth figures more generally for the economy last week. Rather than ours being the weakest post-pandemic recovery in terms of visitor numbers, the post-pandemic recovery in the UK has been stronger than in countries, such as Germany and Japan, that continued to offer VAT RES. Post-pandemic recovery in the UK has also been stronger than in the United States and Canada in both 2022 and 2023.
We want to make sure that the tourist experience in the UK is as great as it can possibly be. One of the ways in which we have tried to reduce the bureaucracy and the barriers for tourists coming into the UK is by creating an exemption from visa requirements through our new electronic travel authorisation scheme to boost international tourism numbers, with visitors from the Gulf Co-operation Council states and Jordan being the first to benefit. We have also worked with industry to set up the tourism industry working group on international competitiveness and demand, which has been established to recommend practical policy options to support tourism recovery.
Nickie Aiken
I was interested to hear about that new collection of people working together to improve the tourist offer. If that group recommended that VAT RES be reintroduced to help the growth of tourism, would the Treasury be minded to accept that recommendation?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend will know that that group will not necessarily have access—in fact, I would be surprised if it did—to the macroeconomic data that the Treasury, the OBR and others, including the retail industry itself, have. We understand that every decision we make will be scrutinised in due course by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, so there are processes that we have to go through. As I have said, however, and as I will repeat in this speech, we are very keen to hear evidence and data from the retail sector. We very much keep this policy under review.
In respect of high streets, it is argued that the reintroduction of the VAT RES scheme would be a useful move to support our world-leading retailers. This Government are proud to have provided huge support to the retail sector, not least through the extreme challenges that that sector faced during the pandemic. Hon. Members will recall the measures that we took to ensure that the sector paid no business rates—support that was worth £16 billion to businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors throughout the pandemic—as well as the very practical support measures such as the furlough scheme, bounce back loans and even small business grants for the smaller businesses in our communities, all of which helped to secure and safeguard millions of jobs across the UK economy and keep businesses surviving through that very difficult time. We would argue that that support helped to keep our high streets, our retail centres and our communities thriving.
We clearly recognise the importance of retailers and will continue to act effectively to support them. At autumn statement 2022, the Government announced business rate changes and tax cuts worth more than £13.5 billion over the next five years, which will support the retail, tourism, leisure and hospitality sectors, as well as other parts of the economy. These announcements included a freeze to the business rates multiplier for 2023-24, which is a tax cut worth £9.3 billion over the next five years, meaning that all bills are 6% lower than without the freeze.
We also introduced an Exchequer-funded transitional relief scheme, which many sectors had asked for and which is worth £1.6 billion, to protect an estimated 700,000 rate-payers facing bill increases due to the increases in rateable value. Indeed, I have had the pleasure of visiting that great British company John Lewis, on Oxford Street, to see for myself the positive impact that these and other changes have had on that really important British business.
Nickie Aiken
I thank the Minister for giving way yet again. I am interested in what she says about a great British company such as John Lewis, which is based in my constituency, and its flagship branch in Oxford Street, which is also in my constituency. Does she agree that, if we are to encourage people back to places such as Oxford Street—the nation’s high street—those places have to have a great offering? They have to look good, be clean and have brilliant shops, and not so many of the candy stores and that type of retail offer, which we seem to have at the moment and which is really disappointing. Also, the Mayor of London has a huge role to play in ensuring that there is a tourism offer, and the current Mayor is letting down London.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. May I just say that we are straying from the subject matter, which is tax-free shopping? Also, when you say “you,” that means me. I did not do anything—it is “the Minister”.
Victoria Atkins
I hope to ingeniously incorporate VAT RES into my response to my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right that, although the advocates of the scheme place a great deal of emphasis on it as a tax lever to encourage tourists back to the United Kingdom, in reality tourists come to the UK to look at our beautiful architecture, visit theatres, visit wonderful historic locations, and—dare I say it—visit the Lincolnshire wolds and other places of great beauty around the country.
Victoria Atkins
Including, of course, the Cotswolds. We must look not just at how to encourage more tourism through tax levers, but at the actual offering to tourists when they are here in Oxford Street, Burford or Bourton-on-the-Water, so we ensure that those places are as attractive and inviting as they can possibly be. I hope that the House is therefore in no doubt that the Government are determined to do everything they can to make the UK an attractive place to visit, both to support tourism and hospitality and to support our retailers.
As I have said, the VAT retail export scheme is still available to those non-UK visitors who purchase items in store or online and have them delivered to their overseas address. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds, a significant Treasury analysis in 2022 estimated that introducing worldwide VAT RES shopping would come at a fiscal cost of around £2 billion each year. I know that my hon. Friends and others have questioned that analysis and methodology, and I will try to address some of those queries and concerns. We also know that industry-commissioned analyses have reached different conclusions, including the Oxford Economics report, which I have gone through carefully with officials. I will try to break some of those down.
The Treasury costings include estimates for an increase in the numbers, but it does not agree that as many extra visitors would come to the UK as a result of changing the tax measure, as suggested by the external research that we have seen so far, particularly the Oxford Economics analysis. For example, the Government estimate that 50,000 to 80,000 more people would come to the UK if we introduced such a scheme. My hon. Friend thinks the figure would be higher, and I think the Oxford Economics report suggested something in the region of 1.6 million, but the 50,000 to 80,000 figure has been endorsed by the OBR, which is the independent body that scrutinises Treasury calculations and assumptions. Indeed, my hon. Friend has asked the OBR to review the policy.
The figure of 50,000 to 80,000 extra visitors is just 4% of that suggested by Oxford Economics, which suggested that 1.6 million more people would come every year. To put that in context, the total number of tourists we welcomed in 2019 was just over 40 million. We therefore find the external assumption to be much stronger than the Treasury was able to find evidence for.
Let me try to reassure observers about the Treasury’s methodology. I know that the concern is raised that it does not properly account for an increase in visitors. I reiterate that the fiscal cost of £2 billion was made up not just of that factor, but of many other components. For example, the cost includes the VAT loss on purchases from EU and non-EU visitors. The cost also takes account of changes in behaviour. It includes an adjustment for the changes in the number of visitors, the changing spending patterns of visitors and the impact of digitalising a VAT RES scheme.
It is also said that the costings overestimate VAT refunds to EU shoppers, but, in fact, EU visitor spending is adjusted to account for the fact that these visitors tend to spend less than non-EU visitors. Government analysis assumed that EU visitors would spend at about 60% of non-EU levels, but, for comparison, Oxford Economics used 63%, so the Government’s assumption was in fact more generous.
Even taking into account those effects, the Government still estimate that the measure would cost in the region of £2 billion each year, and the methodology for calculating that £2 billion cost is consistent with the methodology signed off and certified by the OBR in 2020.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster emphasised, tourism must be seen in the round. We should be confident that the UK’s attraction as a destination extends well beyond our shopping, even though we have pretty brilliant shops in our great city and around the country. Evidence from VisitBritain shows that the key motivators for tourists visiting the UK are our rich history and heritage and our vibrant towns and cities, not just shopping.
HMRC has surveyed VAT RES users and found that VAT RES did not make the list of reasons for visiting Great Britain. Furthermore, two thirds of those surveyed said that they would have purchased the items regardless of the scheme, while 28% would have purchased fewer items, meaning that 95% of tourists would still shop even without the scheme.
To emphasise that point, I have asked officials for figures on how much tourists spend when they are visiting. I am told that the average spend per visit was £696 in 2019 and £848 in 2022, which is an increase of 8% in real terms. That tends to indicate that international spending habits in the UK are not directly informed by whether VAT RES is in place.
I accept, of course, that individuals will make different decisions on VAT, and that some customers are more price-sensitive than others. However, taken in the round, those are the figures with which I have been provided. We have looked at the Treasury’s analysis and the OBR’s analysis, which suggest that the increase in tourist spending is marginal, but the policy would still come with a significant price tag.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds advocates for a review. As with all taxes, the Government keep VAT policy under constant review. Further to that, we have committed to understanding the latest evidence on VAT shopping, or on the impact of the VAT RES scheme on shopping in British high streets. That is why the Chancellor has already invited evidence submissions from industry to inform our policy making.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the retail and hospitality industry for providing so much data already for my officials. I am obviously keen for them to carry on with their businesses—earning money, making profits, employing people and contributing to our growing economy. I am grateful to them for taking the trouble and time to help us with this. We expect further evidence in the coming weeks, which we look forward to receiving and will consider very carefully.
Although I am obliged to stress that the independent OBR certified the Government’s costings for the removal of the VAT RES scheme and that we have set out our methodology for how the £2 billion estimate was calculated, I have heard my hon. Friend’s call for an independent review and I will reflect carefully on his eloquent submissions.
We are committed to ensuring that the UK remains an attractive place to visit and committed to supporting our retail sector. None the less, the Chancellor is clear that being responsible with the public finances is a key priority. In that regard, VAT RES would subsidise a large amount of tourist spending that already occurs, arguably, without a tax relief in place. But we very much want to listen to industry and support long-term sustainable growth, so we will continue, as I say, to receive evidence and keep the policy under review. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for setting this debate in motion.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to you, Dr Huq, for giving me the opportunity to briefly reply to this debate; it is very important. I thank the Minister for setting out in detail for the first time how the Treasury’s methodology works. I will come back to that in a minute. Before she did so, she set out in detail the reliefs that the Treasury has given to businesses in rates and VAT, as well as high street grants and business grants during the dreadful pandemic, all of which were very much appreciated by businesses and no doubt kept a lot of them going. Some of those reliefs still persist today, for which I am sure businesses are grateful. But that is no substitute for businesses getting profits into their bottom line, and one way of doing that is to get more tourists into this country spending more money. That is why I think the issue is so important.
The Minister has fully set out the case for why she believes the Treasury’s methodology relating to the £2 billion cost to the Treasury is correct. I suggest that I take that away and ask industry to go through, in depth, all the things that she has mentioned and come up with a statement on whether they agree on each individual point, and if not, why they disagree and what the effect would be. If, at the end of the day, we still disagree with the Treasury’s methodology, may I come back to her with a comprehensive statement and discuss it further? I would still say that we badly need an independent study.
I have not brought my brief today, but I recall that when the OBR addressed the Treasury Committee, it said that it placed low reliance—I think that is what it said—on the visitor number forecasts.
Victoria Atkins
I was anticipating this point and, indeed, quizzed my officials about it. I think the phrase my hon. Friend refers to is a high uncertainty rating. I am told that that rating given by the OBR is not unusual in the context of Government policy. That is because it is driven by behavioural uncertainty, which is difficult to predict with limited data and the additional complexity linked to EU exit. It was not, I am told, because of concerns with the methodology employed. As I say, we are very keen to hear further evidence and views in due course.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so well informed to be able to answer that individual point. However, I suspect, again, that industry and the OBR will disagree with her over that matter.
I thank the Minister very much, and you, Dr Huq, for so ably chairing this debate. It has been thoroughly useful. The fact that we have had relatively few speakers has enabled us to examine the whole issue in detail; I think industry will be very grateful for that. I suspect that it will come back with all sorts of replies that will rebut what my hon. Friend has said. Let us see and then I will go back to her and I am sure the debate will continue. Nevertheless, I thank her very much for what she has done this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered tax-free shopping for international visitors.
Written Statements
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business and Trade update
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for International Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
Since Parliament adjourned for summer recess, the Department for Business and Trade has been carrying out a significant amount of activity in a number of areas. We are updating the House today on progress in these areas.
UK-India trade negotiations
The 11th round of UK-India free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations began on 5 July and concluded on 14 July in London. The 12th round of talks took place in Delhi from 8-31 August. Both rounds were conducted in a hybrid fashion.
During round 11, India’s Minister for Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal, visited London. Discussions covered the status of the negotiations, as well as wider trade and investment opportunities for the UK and India. Shri Sunil Barthwal, India’s Commerce Secretary, also visited the UK during the round to meet with senior UK trade officials and take stock of progress made in the round.
During round 12, between 24-26 August, the Secretary of State visited India to attend the final trade and investment working group of the Indian G20 Presidency. During her visit, she again met with Minister Goyal. Their discussions focused on goods, services and investment. We agreed to hold round 13 in September.
UK-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) trade negotiations
The fourth round of UK-Gulf Cooperation Council free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations began on 17 July and concluded on 28 July in London. The round was held in a hybrid fashion.
Technical discussions were held across 23 policy areas over 44 sessions. Good progress was made and both sides remain committed to securing an ambitious, comprehensive and modern agreement fit for the 21st century.
UK-Israel trade negotiations
The third round of United Kingdom-Israel free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations began week commencing 23 July. The round was held in a hybrid fashion—UK officials travelled to Jerusalem for negotiations and others attended virtually.
We focused primarily on trade in services and procurement, which are key areas not covered by our current trading arrangements under the trade and continuity partnership agreement. Negotiators held text-based and technical discussions across 10 policy areas and 32 sessions in Jerusalem. Both sides continue to work towards an upgraded modern agreement and the fourth round of negotiations will take place in due course.
Smarter regulations
We intend to introduce legislation to further extend recognition of the CE mark in Great Britain for regulations managed by the Department for Business and Trade when parliamentary time allows.
Government have engaged extensively with industry to understand concerns about the requirement to use the UKCA mark on many products from December 2024. We have heard that the planned transition to UKCA poses challenges and costs for businesses. We have listened and we are taking action.
Businesses will have the flexibility and choice to use either the UKCA mark or the EU’s CE mark to place goods on the GB market. This approach is designed to minimise additional regulatory compliance costs for businesses while ensuring consumers can continue to access safe products. We will engage with industry to develop our proposed approach to product markings and CE recognition in a way that benefits both British businesses and consumers.
Departmental responsibility transfer update
Following machinery of Government changes, responsibility for the pre-existing provision for covid loan guarantees and the pre-existing Post Office working capital facility has transferred from the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Department for Business and Trade.
Following review, it has been noted that at the Department for Business and Trade’s main estimate for 2023-24 Government officials did not include the cash required to meet payments for these pre-existing arrangements. Parliamentary approval for additional cash of £3,659,625,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for Business and Trade. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £3,659,625,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the contingencies fund. The cash advance will be repaid upon receiving Royal Assent on the Supply and Appropriation Bill.
Shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme (SCGS)
Today the Secretary of State is laying a departmental minute describing a contingent liability arising from the launch of a shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme (SCGS) before Parliament.
The scheme is a finance instrument which will provide guarantees to banks in respect of loans made to vessel owners and operators seeking to place orders at UK shipyards. The shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme (SCGS) will guarantee a portion of the value of eligible loans, sharing the risk with lenders to encourage offers of finance to UK vessel owners and operators.
The SCGS is one of a number of targeted interventions being taken as part of over £4 billion of Government investment planned through the Government’s national shipbuilding strategy refresh, to encourage UK ship owners and operators to place new orders and upgrade their existing fleets with world-leading shipyards that are based up and down the UK. HM Treasury has approved the arrangements.
[HCWS1010]
“A Sustainable Future—Reforming Club Football Governance”: Consultation Response
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have today published our response to the White Paper consultation “A Sustainable Future – Reforming Club Football Governance: Consultation Response”.
Football lies at the heart of our nation and it touches the lives of so many of us across the country. Football brings people together, whether at times of national sporting success, or through football clubs that form a vital part of our lives not just for fans, but for their local communities too. Football fosters a sense of belonging and supports local economies.
As the Government set out in the White Paper, “A Sustainable Future - Reforming Club Football Governance”, although English football is an undeniable global success story that should be celebrated, protected and promoted, there are long-standing issues in the game. The football pyramid is a huge asset of this country, but unfortunately some clubs have been run in financially unsustainable ways.
This consultation response is the latest step in the Government’s ongoing commitment to support, promote and protect the national game, as well as ensure that fans are placed at the heart of it. This began with the Government’s 2019 manifesto commitment to an independent fan-led review, which was then carried out in 2021. The Government are extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), the chair of the review, for her comprehensive work. This ultimately led us to publish our White Paper in February 2023, which built on the review’s recommendations and set out a comprehensive plan to introduce an independent regulator for English football clubs.
This regulator will have a primary strategic purpose of ensuring that English football is sustainable and resilient, for the benefit of fans and the local communities they serve. This will help to protect our national game, build secure foundations for clubs and ensure fans are always in their rightful place at the heart of football.
Since publishing the White Paper, the Government have undertaken significant engagement with a broad range of stakeholders. This has included regular meetings with the Premier League, English Football League (EFL), the Football Association (FA), the National League and the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA), as well as official and ministerial-level meetings with over 40 football clubs. In addition, the Government have held a series of meetings with leading experts across a variety of fields, including economics, finance, regulation and law. The Government have also received detailed written responses from over 70 key stakeholders including the Premier League and EFL (and a number of their constituent clubs), the FA, the FSA and contributions from industry and legal experts as well as other footballing bodies, including Fair Game, Kick It Out, the Players Football Association (PFA) and Level Playing Field.
I want to thank all the fan groups, clubs, leagues, football bodies and industry experts who have engaged with the Government throughout the entire process, providing their feedback and views on key aspects of the Government’s policy proposals, including financial regulation, corporate governance, financial distributions and fan engagement. I would also like to thank the academics Kieran Maguire and Dr Christina Philippou for their independent, expert analysis of financial sustainability in football. I have personally met with a number of clubs, football authorities and fan organisations to listen to their views and understand how the Government can best achieve our shared goal of a successful, sustainable English game. Across the board, this engagement has been very constructive and has helped the Government to further develop and fine-tune our policy proposals.
The document the Government are publishing today summarises some of the key themes arising out of this ongoing consultation and sets out this Government’s response. This includes topics such as: the case for reform; the scope of the regulator; consistency of the regulatory approach; the independence of the regulator; managing the regulatory landscape; and the regulatory backstop powers on distributions. Furthermore, the document sets out that the Government are currently minded to set up a new independent body to house the regulator; however, all options remain under review.
The Government will continue to work with and engage industry and fan groups as these proposals develop. English football is a £6 billion industry with a unique market structure and complex commercial dynamics. As such, it is crucial that the Government take the necessary time to work closely with key stakeholders to design a bespoke regulatory model that allows for a flexible, agile and proportionate approach. This Government’s approach will seek to minimise the risk of regulatory overlap and burden, by collaborating and sharing information with existing football bodies, which could include co-ordinating rules and processes with industry bodies to minimise gaps, duplication or conflicts. This will balance the need for change to secure the long-term future of our national game and the need to restore fans’ place at its heart with the importance of ensuring continued global success.
The Government are working at pace to deliver and remain committed to legislating to put the independent football regulator on a statutory footing as soon as parliamentary time allows.
I am confident that our White Paper proposals will put football on a more sustainable course for the future, and the Government remain fully committed to working with fans and the wider football community to make them a reality.
[HCWS1007]
Full Chain Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage project: Development Consent
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Net Zero Teesside Power Ltd and Net Zero North Sea Storage Ltd for development consent for a full chain carbon capture, usage and storage project, which includes a new gas-fired electricity generating station with post-combustion carbon capture plant, gas, electricity and water connections and a CO2 pipeline network, located on Teesside.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The current statutory deadline for the decision on the net zero Teesside project is 14 September 2023.
The Secretary of State requested further information to be supplied by the applicants Net Zero Teesside Power Ltd and Net Zero North Sea Storage Ltd by 30 May. The applicants submitted this information on 4 August. The Secretary of State has, therefore, decided to set a new deadline of no later than 16 November 2023 for deciding this application, to enable my Department to ensure sufficient time to consider this information and to conduct the necessary consultations with interested parties.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decisions on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS1008]
Immigration Rules: Statement of Changes
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules.
EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) and EUSS family permits
We are making certain changes to the EUSS, which enables EU, other European Economic Area (EEA) and Swiss citizens living in the UK by the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, and their family members, to obtain immigration status.
The effect of the changes is the removal of the right of administrative review for EUSS eligibility refusals and relevant cancellation decisions made on or after 5 October 2023. In line with the Citizens’ Rights Agreements, a right of redress will continue to be provided through a right of appeal. The changes create streamlined arrangements for challenging a decision and align with the approach taken in the rest of the immigration system (where no dual right of redress exists).
The same changes apply to the S2 Healthcare Visitor route, which provides a route of entry to the UK for people who, before the end of the transition period, had requested authorisation from their EEA home state or Switzerland to receive a course of planned healthcare treatment provided by the NHS under the “S2 arrangement”.
We are also making some minor, technical amendments to Appendix EU for clarification purposes.
Immigration Rules for Pre-1997 Gurkhas, Hong Kong Military Unit Veterans and Family Members
We are bringing the pre-1997 Gurkha settlement concession into the Immigration Rules and at the same time extending the policy to cover pre-1997 members of Hong Kong military units as announced in March 2023.
The policy recognises Hong Kong veterans have similar circumstances to Gurkhas, stationed in Hong Kong prior to handover to China, although never based in the UK. It will enable those eligible who were discharged before 1 July 1997 to settle in the UK. This will be done by extending the provisions of the settlement concession that already exists for former Gurkhas and their families to Hong Kong military unit veterans and their families. Bringing both cohorts under the rules provides greater transparency for these routes and fairness of treatment.
Changes to Appendix Electronic Travel Authorisation
We have made changes to clarify that the ETA exemption for applicants lawfully resident in Ireland who are travelling within the Common Travel Area will require a person aged 16 or above to demonstrate residency in Ireland, if required by a UK official, in order to benefit from this exemption.
The changes to the Immigration Rules are being laid on 7 September 2023.
All changes in the Statement of Changes will come into effect on various dates from 28 September 2023.
[HCWS1009]
UK Science update
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
The Government have successfully concluded negotiations with the European Union regarding the UK’s participation in EU science and research programmes; Horizon Europe and Copernicus.
From today, UK scientists can bid and participate confidently in the world’s largest programme of research co-operation—alongside their EU, Norwegian, New Zealand and Israeli colleagues—and with countries like Korea and Canada looking to join.
UK academics and industry will be able to bid, secure funding for, and, crucially, lead, the vast majority of new calls that will be opening throughout the autumn. UK researchers and businesses can be certain that all successful UK applicants will be covered through the UK’s association for the rest of the programme, or through the remainder of the UK’s Horizon Europe guarantee scheme as we transition to these new arrangements. All calls in Work Programme 2024 will be covered by association and the UK guarantee scheme will be extended to cover all calls under Work Programme 2023. UK scientists and researchers can lead project consortia under Work Programme 2024—a key ask of the sector—allowing them to shape the next generation of international collaboration.
Under the previous programme the UK established over 200,000 collaborative links, and we will now play a leading role in a range of ground-breaking industry collaborations such as the Al, Data and Robotics Partnership worth over £2 billion, or the Cancer Mission aiming to help more than 3 million people by 2030.
Access to Horizon Europe was a top ask of our research community. We have listened to our sector and in this deal delivered collaboration where it is most valuable to UK science. This provides our scientists with a stable base for international collaboration and makes sure we are on track to deliver on the ambition to make the UK a science and technology superpower by 2030.
The Government have negotiated a bespoke deal in the UK’s national interest. It strengthens UK science, boosts economic growth and delivers for the UK taxpayer. This bespoke deal works for the UK by ensuring that we do not pay for the time we were not associated. It also delivers a new mechanism protecting our taxpayers in case the UK ends up putting significantly more into the pot than our scientists get out. This deal also means that the UK has a greater ability to overperform than other associated countries outside the EU/ EEA reflecting our confidence in UK science.
We will also associate to the Copernicus programme, a state-of-the art capacity to monitor the Earth, and to its services. The UK’s association to Copernicus comes at a crucial moment, where the Copernicus space infrastructure and its information services will evolve further and our contribution to understanding and acting on environmental and climate change related challenges is more important than ever. Access to this unique Earth observation data will provide early warning of floods and fires and allow the UK’s world-leading sector to bid for contracts worth over hundreds of millions. And the UK will have cost-free access to the EU Space Surveillance and Tracking services, providing important information about objects in space.
The UK will not join the Euratom programme. The UK fusion sector has communicated a preference for an alternatives programme that would involve direct investment in the UK sector. We are pleased to announce that we will be doing exactly that. We plan to invest up to £650 million to 2027 in a programme of new, cutting-edge alternative programmes subject to business cases, and will announce further details shortly.
[HCWS1006]
Grand Committee
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the Grand Committee do consider the Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that these draft regulations, which were laid before this House on 10 July, be approved. The Government are committed to the 1998 Belfast agreement and our priority, as always, is to see the return of locally elected, accountable and fully functioning devolved government, which is and will remain the right way for Northern Ireland to be governed. In the absence of devolved government, the UK Government are committed to acting in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland to ensure good governance until an Executive are restored.
In December last year, primary legislation was passed which, among other measures, addressed the need for urgent public appointments to be made to a number of bodies. The initial phase of appointments under that legislation, the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, gave provisions for the Secretary of State to appoint a commissioner for children and young people. It further gave provisions for the Lord Chancellor to make appointments to the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
The 2022 Act also included provision for the Secretary of State to add by way of regulations to the list further urgent and necessary appointments that may arise during the continuing absence of a functioning Executive. This statutory instrument therefore includes a further list of specified offices which have been identified by the Executive Office in Northern Ireland as urgent and critical. These were not originally provided for in the Act, as urgent action was not required at that time.
To prepare this instrument, my officials have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Civil Service departments, including the Executive Office, to identify the further critical appointments which have arisen, some of which have already faced difficulties and been unable to exercise their statutory duties and functions, due to the absence of Ministers, one example of this being the Tourism Northern Ireland Board.
This instrument therefore adds to the list in Section 6 of the Executive formation Act, thereby enabling the Secretary of State, as the relevant UK Minister, to exercise a Northern Ireland Minister’s appointments function in relation to the offices listed in Regulation 2(2) of this statutory instrument. These are important offices and the exercise of appointments functions in the coming months is critical for the continuing good governance of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I thank the Minister for his introduction and obviously wholly support him in what he is required to do. I have just a couple of issues to raise. We were having an informal discussion about one of them, but it would be useful if the Minister could put on the record just what the process is for the confirmation.
Secondly, there is rather a paucity of people present for this debate, including representatives from Northern Ireland, and that is the nub of our problem. The reality is that Ministers, including the noble Lord, should not have to be doing this. It is a total betrayal of the proper interests of the people of Northern Ireland that this is not being decided by their democratically elected politicians. The Minister even hinted at the fact that it is creating problems. There are vacancies which have not easily been filled and that is affecting the functions.
I wonder how many more times we can go through this process before this Government, or another Government, will have to initiate a change. To my mind—I will say this explicitly—the Democratic Unionist Party may be unionist but it is certainly not democratic, because the reality is that it is not representing the people of Northern Ireland and not even representing the people who voted for it. But it is denying the majority of the people of Northern Ireland effective governance and that is causing real hardship, real difficulty and real suffering.
Finally, the argument put forward is that they are not going to go back until their seven tests are met, yet those tests are entirely irreconcilable. They are not achievable. They are not actually possible. On that basis, we are left asking, “Is there any intention of them returning or any circumstances under which they will?” I know that the Minister has many conversations and dialogues, but I do not know whether he feels that we have any chance of getting the Executive and the Assembly back. We cannot go on doing this year in, year out, without addressing the problem and doing something about it. I know that that is not the subject of this debate—I absolutely support what the Minister is trying to do—but I would be grateful if he could briefly tell us about the process for appointments.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, start by echoing those sentiments. Obviously, the solution is to get the Stormont Government and the Assembly up and running. In yesterday’s Oral Questions in the other place, this issue was specifically addressed. The Minister there responded to my right honourable friend Hilary Benn, who asked what plans there are and what conversations are being had, by saying that conversations with the DUP are constantly ongoing and that some progress is apparently being made. I hope that the Minister here can echo that positive side of things because the solution rests with getting the democratic institutions back up and running.
I turn to the specifics of the SI. I am sure that it is good practice and an ongoing practice for all relevant departments to do this but, certainly when we see that the specific urgent appointments include the Agricultural Wages Board and the Labour Relations Agency, I just want to be reassured that the practice of consulting properly with stakeholders, in particular with the trade unions concerned in Northern Ireland, is taking place.
With those few comments, I will leave it to the Minister to respond.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Collins of Highbury, for their contributions to this SI debate, which is definitely a record, it being the shortest I have had to deal with since becoming a Northern Ireland Office Minister. I am sorry that some colleagues from Northern Ireland could not be present today.
On the couple of points that were made, I echo entirely both noble Lords’ comments in respect of getting Stormont back up and running at the earliest opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is right that the current situation is not sustainable and that the arrangements for governing Northern Ireland are not right for the long term. We need to return to a proper, stable, functioning devolved Government, as set out in the 1998 agreement.
As far as progress is concerned, I can say that, yes, progress is being made. We all know the reasons why the Democratic Unionist Party withdrew its Ministers last year. We are working hard. Obviously, we achieved the Windsor Framework in February this year; we are now working hard to clarify and address any outstanding concerns. As my right honourable friend made clear in the other place yesterday, conversations are taking place constantly and are ongoing. I myself held a round of discussions with each of the Northern Ireland political parties shortly before the Summer Recess. The Secretary of State is continuing with that. Obviously, conversations with the Irish Government took place last week at the British-Irish Association conference. We are continuing the dialogue. Naturally, I cannot put a timetable on this, but it is pressing and we need a return as quickly as possible; we are working flat out towards that end.
On the process for making these appointments, the devolved Northern Ireland government departments will continue to run the recruitment processes in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland code of practice. In direct response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that enables consultation with a wide range of partners, but ultimately it is for the department to run the process. We are not interfering in or taking over in that sense. The role of the Secretary of State is simply to substitute for what would normally be done by a Minister in charge of the relevant Northern Ireland department. The process will run in exactly the same way it would if devolution were up and running. The only difference is that the sign-off will not be a Northern Ireland Minister but—unfortunately, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
It is interesting that a number of the appointments identified in this SI were dealt with by the UK Government four years ago when Sinn Féin was keeping the institutions of the Assembly down between 2017 and 2020. A number of those appointments were made at the time, and they have run their four-year course. We unfortunately find ourselves having to repeat the same exercise. Like the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Collins, I sincerely hope that we do not have to do this again and that we can achieve a situation in which the institutions are fully functioning and up and running, and the Belfast agreement, which we all strongly support, is implemented in full for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the fact that we finished rather quickly, the Committee is adjourned for five minutes.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Camrose
That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023
Relevant document: 48th Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 10 July 2023, and they will be made under the powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. They will mandate that the manufacturers of consumer connectable products made available to customers in the UK are, unless excepted, required to meet minimum security requirements.
In doing so, this instrument will complete the introduction of the UK’s pioneering product security regime, established by Part 1 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. Subject to noble Lords’ approval, this regime will afford UK citizens and businesses with world-leading protections from the threats of cybercrime, as well as equipping the Government with the tools to ensure the long-term security of a vital component of the broader technology ecosystem.
Acting to secure consumer connectable products has never been more critical than it is now, as we cross the threshold of the fourth industrial revolution. Before our eyes, artificial intelligence is rewriting how we live our lives, how we deliver our priorities and the rules of entire industries. AI models are already an inextricable part of the connectable products we use every day, from the convolutional neural networks that recognise the photos of loved ones on our smartphones, to the recurrent neural networks that allow our smart speakers to respond to our requests. The data collected through consumer devices is often also a vital part of a model’s training set.
These regulations are therefore not just crucial if we are to protect our citizens and economy from the array of threats posed by consumer connectable products today but a vital step if we are to mitigate the risks, and therefore fully realise the benefits, of the AI-enabled economy of tomorrow. With the support of this House and Members of another place, this is precisely what the Government aim to achieve with these regulations.
The key provisions of this instrument are as follows. First, the regulations mandate that manufacturers comply with the security requirements set out in Schedule 1. These requirements were selected, following extensive consultation, because they are applicable across a broad range of devices and are commended by security experts as the most fundamental measures for addressing cyber risks to products and their users. This means that businesses will no longer be able to sell consumer smart products with universal default or easily guessable default passwords to UK customers. These passwords not only expose users to unacceptable risks of cyberattack but can also allow malicious actors to compromise products at scale, equipping them with the computing power to launch significantly disruptive cyberattacks.
Manufacturers will also be required to publish, in a manner that is accessible, clear and transparent, the details of a point of contact for the reporting of security vulnerabilities. It pains me to share that, despite our entrusting the security of our data, finances and even homes to the manufacturers of these products, as of 2022, less than one-third of global manufacturers had a policy for how they can be made aware of vulnerabilities. With your support, the UK aims to change that.
The final security requirement in this instrument will ensure that the minimum length of time for which a product will receive security updates is not just published but published in an accessible, clear and transparent manner. We know that consumers value security and consider it when purchasing products. Equipped with the vital information mandated by this requirement, UK consumers will be able to drive manufacturers to improve the security protections they offer through market forces.
We are confident, based on extensive policy development, consultation and advice from the National Cyber Security Centre, that these security requirements will make a fundamental difference to the security of products, their users and the wider connected technology ecosystem.
We also recognise the importance of cutting red tape or, better still, not introducing it in the first place. For this reason, Regulation 4 allows manufacturers that are already compliant with provisions in international standards equivalent to our security requirements to more readily demonstrate their compliance with our security requirements.
The instrument also sets out a list of products excepted from the scope of the product security regime. First, it excepts select product categories where made available for supply in Northern Ireland. This exception ensures that the regime upholds the UK’s international commitments under the EU withdrawal agreement, while extending the protections and benefits offered by the regime to consumers and businesses across the UK.
In addition, smart charge points, medical devices and smart metering devices are excepted to avoid double regulation and to ensure that these products are secured with the measures most appropriate to the particulars of their functions. This instrument also excepts laptops, desktop computers and tablets without a cellular connection from the regime’s scope. Engagement with industry highlighted that the manufacturers of these products would face unique challenges in complying with this regime, and in many cases where these products are in use they are already subject to suitable cyber protections. It is therefore not clear at this stage that including these products in the regime’s scope would be proportionate.
Finally, the regulations also contain uncontroversial administrative provisions, including provisions relating to statements of compliance. The regime will require that these documents accompany products, serving as an audit trail to enable compliance across the supply chain and to facilitate effective enforcement.
These regulations and the regime of which they are a part represent a victory for UK consumers. They are the first in the world to recognise that the public has a right to expect that the products available for them to purchase are secure. These measures solidify the United Kingdom’s position at the forefront of the global cyber agenda, paving the way for other nations to follow in our footsteps. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction, which gave us the context for these regulations and the risks they are designed to mitigate and prevent. I agree with him about the importance of regulating in this area but, sadly—clearly—this is not box office today. We must live with that.
I welcome the regulations as far as they go. The one bright spot is that all regulations under the original Act, with one exception, are subject to the affirmative procedure, thanks to amendments put forward by us and accepted by the Government, which were designed to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. That we are discussing the regulations in this way is testimony to that.
However, the regulations do not go far enough, despite being described by the Minister as a “pioneering product security regime”. As I said at Third Reading of the original Bill, last October, we did not specify enough security requirements for IoT devices in primary legislation. There was a commitment to regulate for only the top three guidelines covered by the 2018 Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security, namely: first, to prohibit the setting of universal default passwords and the ability to set weak or easily guessable passwords; secondly, to implement a vulnerability disclosure policy, requiring the production and maintenance by manufacturers of regularly publicly available reports of security vulnerabilities; and, thirdly, to keep software updated and ensure the provision of information to the consumer before the contract for sale or supply of a relevant connectable product detailing the minimum length of time for which they will receive software or other relevant updates for that product.
Those are now all in the regulations and I welcome that, but, sadly, many of the other guidelines were never going to be, and are not now, specifically covered in the regulations. Quite apart from the first three, there are a whole range of others: securely store credentials and security-sensitive data; communicate securely; minimise exposed attack surfaces; ensure software integrity; ensure that personal data is protected; make systems resilient to outages; monitor system telemetry data; make it easier for consumers to delete personal data; make the installation and maintenance of devices easy; and validate input data. All those are standards that should be adhered to in relation to these devices. Two of the guidelines that have not been made mandatory—ensure that personal data is protected, and make it easier for consumers to delete personal data—have been highlighted by Which? this very morning, which has produced research demonstrating that:
“Smart home device owners are being asked to provide swathes of data to manufacturers, which could compromise their privacy and potentially result in them handing their personal information to social media and marketing firms, Which? research has found”.
This is part of its press release.
“The consumer champion found companies appear to hoover up far more data than is needed for the product to function. This includes smart speakers and security cameras that share customer data with Meta and TikTok, smart TVs that insist on knowing users’ viewing habits and a smart washing machine that requires people’s date of birth. The research suggests that, despite consumers having already paid up to thousands of pounds for smart products, they are also having to ‘pay’ with their personal data”.
We need to make sure that the Government and the regulator, whether the ICO or others, are on the case in that respect.
Nor did we see any intention to introduce appropriate minimum periods for the provision of security updates and support, taking into account factors including the reasonable expectations of consumers, the type and purpose of the connectable products concerned and any other relevant considerations. During the passage of the Bill, the Government resisted that—unlike the EU, which has imposed a five-year mandatory minimum period in which products must receive security updates. So consumers in Northern Ireland, for instance, are going to be far better off as a result of the TCA and the Windsor agreement.
That has inevitably followed through into these disappointing regulations, but they are even more disappointing than previously anticipated. Online marketplaces are not covered. Why not? My noble friend Lord Fox tabled an amendment on Report that sought to probe whether online marketplaces would be covered, a question that I think we all agree is of great importance. My noble friend quoted a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, dated 21 September 2022 stating that
“businesses need to comply with the security requirements of the product security regime in relation to all new consumer connectable products offered to customers in the UK, including those sold through online marketplaces”.
In response, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said:
“The Bill will ensure that where online marketplaces manufacture, import or sell products, they bear responsibility for the security of those products. Where this does not happen, I assure noble Lords that they should make no mistake: the regulator will act promptly to address serious risk from insecure products, and work closely with online marketplaces to ensure effective remedy”.
I accepted that assurance. I said:
“As regards the online marketplaces, I am grateful for those assurances, which are accepted and are very much in line with the letter”.—[Official Report, 12/10/22; cols. 794-95.]
That was the assurance that was given and accepted.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, as ever, and to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his contribution. He had lots of questions, as ever, many the same as those we asked during the passage of the Bill.
The Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act creates a regime that has three purposes, which the Minister set out. They are to minimise default or easy-to-guess passwords, to maintain an awareness of security threats and publish contact information for use by consumers and owners, and to encourage greater transparency about how long the products covered by this legislation will receive security updates and support. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that these are low-hanging fruit for regulation. We should look at this instrument as a small step in the right direction.
With that in our minds, we supported the PSTI Bill during its passage and, in common with other Members of the House, tabled and supported a number of amendments to go further than the Government wished.
The requirements being imposed on manufacturers are widely supported by consumer groups, although they are rightly very nervous and watchful of the direction in which the legislation takes us in terms of data. Questions are being asked about whether the standards are sufficient and what role, if any, distributors will have in improving consumer knowledge of security issues.
As discussed in a debate earlier this week, people’s habits with regard to data and the digital world have changed enormously over the past few years. This includes the rapid take-up of smart and connectable devices, such as smart speakers, CCTV doorbells and so on. These products are highly desirable, and yet research has demonstrated that many contain significant security vulnerabilities and that consumers are generally not aware of the risks that they face.
A policy commitment was made back in January 2020 and the Bill was passed in December 2022, so why will the new regime come into force only by April next year? We understand the need for technical details to be worked through and for manufacturers to adjust their own systems, but could the Government not have moved more quickly than this? This is a fast-moving market, after all.
We supported the passage of the Bill and, as I said, worked with colleagues across the House to push the Government to be more ambitious about the regime’s scope and the security standards that should be met by manufacturers, but it seems that Ministers refused to raise the bar and continue to do so.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, Which? and others have noted that, while the Act allows the Government to place requirements on manufacturers, importers and distributors, these regulations cover only manufacturers. Is the hope that distributors and retailers will pass security information on to consumers voluntarily or is the department looking at other tailored requirements for them? If the latter, how long might this take? Perhaps the Minister could elucidate that.
It seems that every day we hear of another major hack or data breach. Some are used to defraud victims, while others harness networks of smart devices to launch attacks on major websites. Sadly, these dangers are likely only to grow, as we discovered in recent weeks, so it is vital that the Government keep their foot on the gas on these issues, rather than passing these regulations and considering them job done. There is much more to do.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I draw attention to the Which? briefing paper, reflected in a Guardian article today, which suggests that manufacturers may be using these devices to collect more data than the legislation seemingly enables, which is shocking. Asking for postcodes and date-of-birth data seems outwith the manufacturers’ immediate needs. Can the Minister throw some light on this issue? What are the Government’s intentions regarding it and how do they intend to address it? These issues of data retention and use are serious. They affect consumer behaviour, confidence and trust, and trust is a terribly important commodity in today’s world. I hope the Minister can answer those questions.
I am rather with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on smart meters. We have one; it is a scary device, and it has become scarier in the last year as the bills have gone up. I am not sure of its value but my wife tells me it is an invaluable tool. I hope that is the case, that we can get better and more confident about the data that these things produce, and that they are in the service of the consumer rather than of the manufacturer, because that is really where we should be coming from.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the crowds of noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. I will make some general comments to start and then come to specific points that noble Lords have made.
Consumers assume that if a product is for sale it is secure, but too often—I think we are in agreement on this—that is not the case. Many consumers are at risk of cyberattacks, theft, fraud and even physical danger. These regulations will change that, ensuring that protections are implemented for our commonly used items such as smartphones, smartwatches and smart baby monitors, as well as the UK citizens and businesses that use them.
Cybercrime is thought to cost the UK billions of pounds every year, with one report by Detica and the Cabinet Office estimating the total cost at £27 billion a year. In 2020-21 the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau reported receiving over 30,000 reports of cybercrime, resulting in estimated losses of £9.6 million for the victims. Cybercrime is on the rise, and vulnerable internet-of-things products are a key attack vector for criminals. This instrument is an essential step in fighting the dangers of cyber risks.
While the product security regime will come into effect only next April, with the support of this House, I want to take this opportunity to reflect on how far we have come on this agenda. The development of the regime has been supported by a huge range of officials but I extend particular thanks to Peter Stephens, Jasper Pandza, Veena Dholiwar, Maria Bormaliyska, Jonathan Angwin, Warda Hassan, Howard Cheng and Eilidh Tickle for their dedicated and diligent advice.
I thank all experts who have contributed to delivering this regime since 2016. Among them stands Professor David Rogers, to whom I pay particular thanks for his leading role in developing the Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security on which the security requirements of this instrument are based. Lastly, I too thank Which? for being a champion of consumer security, and for holding the Government to account throughout the process of delivering these important measures and on this agenda more broadly.
I shall now respond to the questions that have been asked. On the topic of why the security baseline does not go further, a matter raised by both noble Lords, we do not believe at this stage that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that mandating security requirements beyond the initial baseline would be appropriate. Specifically, we do not currently consider it appropriate to mandate minimum security-update periods for relevant connectable products before the impact of the initial security requirements is known. Governments mandating necessarily broad regulation across a sector as inherently complex as technology security will always run the risk of imposing obligations on businesses that are disproportionate to the associated security benefits or of leaving citizens exposed to cyber threats.
However, the Government agree that, for a number of consumer connectable product verticals, implementation of the three security requirements alone would not be sufficient. Legislation, however, is not the only incentive driving the security practices adopted by tech manufacturers. Evidence suggests that consumers value and consider the security of a product when making purchasing decisions, but assume that products available for them to purchase will not expose them to avoidable security risks.
In ensuring that manufacturers are transparent with UK consumers about how a product’s security will be maintained, we expect the product security regime to incentivise improved standards of cybersecurity beyond the initial three requirements. The Government will closely monitor the impact of the initial security requirements on standards of cybersecurity across the sector, and will not hesitate to mandate further requirements using the powers provided by the parent Act if necessary.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister has moved on from talking about periods of assurance for consumers. I mentioned the EU introducing its five-year rule and the Northern Ireland aspect. That is rather useful for the Government to be able to see the impact of putting down a marker on a five-year period, because there is no alternative under the TCA and the Windsor agreement. Will the Government undertake to review how it is working in Northern Ireland? If it is working well and they think it is practical, will they introduce it across the UK?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
That is an interesting experimental chamber to have, because we can compare the two regimes, so I am happy to make that commitment, yes.
The assurances about online marketplaces from my noble friends Lord Kamall and Lord Parkinson remain true. Products sold through online marketplaces are subject to the same requirements as all other products. No regulation is perfect and, if relevant parties do not comply, the parent Act empowers the Secretary of State, or those whom the Secretary of State has authorised to carry out enforcement functions, with robust powers to address non-compliance, including monitoring the market, warning consumers of risks and, where appropriate, seizing products and recalling products from customers.
The Government have made it clear that they expect online marketplaces to do more to keep unsafe products off their platforms, and are conducting a review of the product safety framework. The product safety review consultation is open until 24 October. Following this, we will review and analyse stakeholder feedback and publish a government response. Any legislation will be brought forward in line with parliamentary procedures and timetables, which will include proposals to tackle the sale of unsafe products online. Officials will continue—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I apologise to the Minister, but what is the reason for having two separate processes for manufacturers and online distributors? The assurance that I quoted could not have been clearer, and we all thought that these regulations would include not only manufacturers but online distributors. It still baffles me and I am sure it baffles the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, as well. The logic of doing it in two separate tranches entirely escapes me.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The processes we have put here resulted from extensive consultation with the stakeholders, both the manufacturers and the retailers.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
So the Minister is saying that the retailers did not like it, did not have the systems required and could not do things quickly enough—despite the fact that some time has elapsed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, mentioned—so they said, “Not now, Josephine”, basically.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
No, the consultation took place with a wide range of civil society and other stakeholders. Mechanisms are in place to update, should it not prove to be as proportionate as we believe it is. The Government are also engaging directly with online marketplaces to explore how they can complement the product security regime and further protect consumers.
On the question of how the regime accounts for the possibility of changing international standards, the instrument references specific versions of ETSI EN 303 645 and ISO/IEC 29147. Were the standards to be updated, the version cited would still be the applicable conditions in Regulation 2. Noble Lords should rest assured that any action by the Government to update the standards referenced in the regime would require further parliamentary scrutiny.
Turning to computers, we do not have evidence that including such products in the scope of the regime would significantly reduce security risk. There is a mature anti-virus software market that empowers customers to secure their own devices. Alongside this, mainstream operating system vendors already include security features in their services. The result is that they are not subject to the same level of risk as other consumer devices.
On smart meters and data, the smart metering product market is already regulated through the Gas Act 1986, the Electricity Act 1989 and the Smart Energy Code. Smart metering products are subject to tailored cyber requirements that reflect their specific risk profile. This exception ensures that smart meter products are not subject to double regulation without compromising their security.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The Minister has referenced two pieces of legislation which almost—this is perhaps going a bit far—predate the digital age. Is he saying that those are fit for purpose, given that much has changed since 1986, to cite one of the dates he gave, and subsequent pieces of legislation? Are they right for what we are doing now?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I have to confess that my familiarity with some of that legislation is a bit limited, but I was attempting to convey that the full extent of the regulation covering those devices is collectively included in those three instruments. I recognise that that is not a wholly satisfactory answer, so I am very happy to write to the noble Lord. That legislation mandates compliance with the code collectively, which is kept up to date and includes robust modern cyber requirements. The UK already has a robust framework for data protection. While I absolutely agree that it is important, it is not the subject of these regulations.
I would like to return to a matter that I addressed earlier and point out that the cyber resilience Act that the noble Lord mentioned will in fact not, as per the current agreed version of the Windsor Framework, come into effect in Northern Ireland. The point remains that we will monitor its impact on the continent. I beg his pardon for not being clear about that.
Turning to the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, we agree that the challenges posed by inadequate consumer connectable product security require urgent action. However, regulating a sector as heterogeneous as connectable technology in its diversity of devices, user cases, threat profiles and extant regulation also requires careful consideration. We feel that we have acted as quickly as was appropriate, and in doing so we acted before any other nation.
On the role of distributors in communicating the defined support period to customers, products made available to consumers in the UK, or those made available to businesses but identical to those made available to consumers, are required to be accompanied by a statement of compliance, which will contain information about the minimum security update period for the product. Retailers are in fact required to ensure that the statement of compliance accompanies their product.
In addition, the SI requires manufacturers to publish information about the minimum security update periods, alongside invitations to purchase the product where certain conditions are met. The Government have no immediate plans to make it mandatory for the distributors of these products to publicise the defined support period. However, we encourage distributors to take this action voluntarily. If the manufacturer fails to publish the defined support period, the enforcement authority can issue notices demanding that the manufacturer make the necessary corrections, or demand that importers or distributors stop selling the product. It can also seize products and recall them from end users.
We will of course be monitoring the effectiveness of the product security regime when it comes into effect. If evidence emerges suggesting that further action to ensure the availability of the defined support period at points of purchase would be appropriate to enhance and protect the security of products and their users, the PSTI product security regime empowers Ministers to take such action.
In conclusion, I hope noble Lords will recognise the benefits that this regime will bring to the UK public and its ground-breaking influence on the world stage.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he could return to his notes on the cyber resilience Act. I heard what he said but it may have been a slip of the tongue because he said that it has not yet come into effect but we will monitor its impact on the continent. I think—at least, I assume—that he meant we will monitor its impact when it comes into effect in Northern Ireland. It will inevitably come into effect into Northern Ireland, will it not?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Perhaps the Minister could write to me or to us. The fact, as I understand it, is that the Act is a piece of EU legislation that is going to come into effect across the EU under the Windsor agreement and the TCA. Northern Ireland is subject to EU legislation of that kind; it will therefore come into effect in Northern Ireland and we will be able to monitor its impact there. So, it is not just a question of monitoring its impact on the continent. We have a homegrown example of how it will be implemented—a test bed.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I do not want to say anything inaccurate. I hope that it is acceptable for me to write to the noble Lord.
House of Lords
Ukraine: Post-conflict Reconstruction
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government what provision they are making in budgetary contingencies for future years for a United Kingdom contribution to post-conflict reconstruction of Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom and international partners are resolute and united in supporting Ukraine to rebuild and emerge from the war with a modernised economy resilient to Russian threats. The Ukraine Recovery Conference in London raised over $60 billion in international support, including multi-year commitments by the UK and others. We have allocated £395 million in bilateral assistance between 2023 and 2025, alongside up to $5 billion in fiscal support. Support for the year 2025-26 onwards will, of course, be confirmed after the spending review.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Treasury and the Foreign Office are very clear about the size and long-term nature of the commitment to rebuilding Ukraine. The Republicans in the US Congress, with whom many Conservatives are now very close, are saying that the United States does not really need to commit to supporting Ukraine. Many Conservatives who supported the leave campaign thought that we should not be paying into the European Union budget, much of which was going to the reconstruction and development of east European, formerly Soviet countries, which contributed to British security. To ensure that Conservatives in opposition do not attack whichever Government it is for raising public spending to support Ukraine long-term, can he reassure us that the Treasury has this publicly in the forward figures?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I respect him greatly, but I am surprised by both the tone and the substance of his question. This Government, together with the full support of His Majesty’s Opposition, have been resolute—and, indeed, there has been support from the Liberal Democrats and universal support for the action that we have taken, for the support that we have given and, of course, for the financial commitments that we have made on humanitarian assistance, economic support, financial support and defence spending.
I have just had a meeting with our outgoing ambassador, Melinda Simmons, and I pay tribute, and I am sure that all noble Lords join me in paying tribute, to her resilience. As a sign of affection and support between us and the Ukrainian people—it is perhaps a poignant and reflective moment, but an interesting one, which I think that we should recognise—on her departure, a beautiful gesture on their part was to name a specific pastry after Melinda and call it the Melinda pastry. That shows the strength of relationships that we have built.
I am proud and resolute in that support. The noble Lord talked about the US. There are many Republicans—and I am not there to comment on the Republicans and Democrats. One thing is clear, irrespective: we have seen strong support from across the United States. As the noble Lord knows, Secretary Blinken is currently in Ukraine. Our support is resolute, and this is across the piece, irrespective of change. From this country, from this House and from the other place, there is unity of purpose and unity of action—we stand with Ukraine.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I take this opportunity to reiterate the Opposition’s support for the Government and absolute commitment to that—and certainly a future Labour Government will continue that support for Ukraine. The noble Lord mentioned the conference; at that conference, Ursula von der Leyen said that €200 billion of frozen assets belonging to the central bank of Russia will be repurposed to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction. Can the Minister update the House on what we are doing about those repurposed sanctioned and frozen assets? That is the key—making sure that Russia pays with its own money.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
First of all, I thank the noble Lord again for underlining the strong support of His Majesty’s Opposition. I have been very clear on the international stage that we speak as one—and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in that respect as well as to my noble friend Lady Goldie, who will respond to a debate on this issue shortly. On the issue of sanctions, I agree with the noble Lord, and we are supportive of those actions. More than 60% of Mr Putin’s war chest has been immobilised—that is £275 billion-worth. The end intent, with all legal considerations taken account of, is that it should be repurposed and service in rebuilding the infrastructure that Russia has destroyed in Ukraine.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is it not important to recognise that among the destruction have been many historic buildings? It is very important that the Ukrainians are able to do what the Poles did in Warsaw—although under a very unhappy Administration. Is it not crucial that we give as much technical advice as we can, through bodies such as English Heritage, so that they can rebuild their patrimony?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I take on board what my noble friend has said. I assure him that we are working to ensure that the infrastructure within Ukraine is developed in a more resilient fashion. We are providing technical support. We are working on energy infrastructure. My noble friend makes an important point about cultural heritage. We are working with bodies such as UNESCO to ensure that, first and foremost, we protect those heritage sites and that, where they have been destroyed, they are rebuilt.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister confirmed in February that more than £2 billion of assets that previously belonged to Roman Abramovich of Chelsea Football Club were ready to be transferred to a humanitarian foundation to be spent on those impacted by the war in Ukraine. That money has not yet been transferred; the foundation has not yet been established; the humanitarian work has not yet begun. Will the Government move a bit more quickly to ensure that this happens as soon as possible?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I can confirm that that was the point my right honourable friend made. The current situation remains that those assets are frozen and cannot be moved unless a licence is issued by the OFSI department within the Treasury. I can assure the noble Lord that we are working in an expedited way with our colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that those funds can be utilised appropriately.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of yesterday’s tragic news of the air raid on the Ukrainian city of Kostiantynivka, where 17 people were killed. Millions of pounds-worth of further damage was added to the literally hundreds of billions-worth of damage that has already been done. Surely we should be looking at a co-ordinated, Marshall-style plan for the rebuilding of Ukraine.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend raises another tragic event. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that we stand once again in unity with the people of Ukraine. It was a blatant attack on a market in the middle of the day. We have heard about the 17 fatalities, and those are added to the many fatalities that have happened already and, tragically, I am sure that there will be others. I agree with my noble friend and I assure him that we are working exactly in that way, with cities being allocated to key countries—for example, there are elements within the city of Kyiv that are specific to UK infrastructure development. Of course, the real challenge is that, every time something is rebuilt, the Russians do not desist from destroying it again, so there has to be a plan. I assure my noble friend that we are working with international partners in that respect.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister to give some consideration to the scale of the problem? Does he recall that Europe got $13 billion after President Truman signed the Economic Recovery Act in 1948? Who is going to be as generous as that when it comes to Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
We are already seeing the support and generosity, not just of the United Kingdom and our partners in Europe and in the United States. We have been heartened in the advocacy that we have been doing, for example, across the Gulf states. We have seen the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provide £100 million in humanitarian support. This trajectory will continue, and we are working towards the G20, which is the next important milestone. The UN General Assembly high-level week in New York will provide other opportunities to focus on a structured approach. But from what we have seen—and we should look at that as a precedent—everyone has come forward to provide the kind of technical and financial support that Ukraine needs.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows that I support the valuable assistance that has been provided to Ukraine. Can he give the House the assurance that, for any funds going forward, there will not, as happened with the previous funds, be a like-for-like matched cut in the official development assistance budget? We may win in Ukraine, but we will lose in the global South if the support we provide for Ukraine is cut from the emergency relief given to those countries most affected by this in Africa.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that we are producing a White Paper on the whole issue of international development to ensure that we can align our priorities and provide the support that is needed by countries around the world. I am proud of the United Kingdom’s historical record in supporting the most vulnerable communities; that will remain a priority. Equally, this is a very different situation that we face: this is a war in Europe, the like of which we have not seen since 1945. I believe, and I am sure the noble Lord agrees, that it is right that we support Ukraine at this important juncture.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, looking further ahead, the restoration and growth of trade will be an important part of Ukraine’s recovery. Have we looked to see whether we could build our trade in the longer term with Ukraine, and in which areas would we explore?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I can assure the noble Lord that we are doing exactly that. We are already looking at supporting Ukraine with generators through the Energy Community support fund. We are also providing a financial guarantee for a £47.5 million loan from the EBRD, we are looking at £35 million of innovation investment in energy recovery, and we are providing loan guarantees to Ukraine in the medium to long term.
Global Famine: Solutions
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the five solutions to global famine proposed by the President of the International Rescue Committee to the United Nations Security Council High-Level Open Debate on Conflict-Induced Food Insecurity and Famine on 3 August.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is stepping up action to improve global food security and nutrition. We will spend at least £1.5 billion on improving nutrition from 2022 to 2030. Our Permanent Representative to the UN, Dame Barbara Woodward, briefed the US-led open debate at the UN Security Council to strengthen global food systems, prevent future famines and reduce conflict. At the debate the International Rescue Committee suggested five helpful, practical solutions to insecurity and famine. The UK is taking concerted action to tackle hunger, including by protecting global food systems.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the shocking statistic that David Miliband highlighted at that conference is that 80% of the world’s acutely malnourished children are not getting any treatment at all. The lifelong consequences are horrendous. Solutions I have witnessed in Africa are the simple test of a band around the arm by parents and community health workers to judge whether a child is malnourished, and the supply of very cheap and cost-effective ready-to-use therapeutic food. In Mali this approach resulted in a 92% success rate and a 30% cost saving on other methods. Will this action be prioritised as part of the Minister’s pledge of £1.5 billion? When will we know how this money will be spent between nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive programmes?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord. I know he has been seized of this issue, including in his work with the all-party parliamentary group. I can give him an assurance about the practical nature of what he suggests. In his report, David Miliband talked about these actions being taken in Kenya and Malawi. They are sensible, low cost and efficient. As the noble Lord said, they identify malnutrition at an early stage. That early intervention is crucial, particularly in helping impoverished children. We are committed to it. Our funding underlines our strong support in this area. As I said in answer to the previous Question, we do a lot on the world stage, where we are very much aligned in helping the most vulnerable. Among those are malnourished children. We need to be focused on those children to ensure that this remains a legacy of which we can be proud in the years to come.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is my first opportunity to welcome the proscription of the Wagner Group. The president of the IRC specifically singled out the Sahel and Sudan as part of this crisis of famine, so I welcome the Government’s moves this week, since I was the first person in Parliament to call for its proscription last spring.
I hope the Minister will reflect on the fact that the UK Government have cut support for famine relief in the Horn of Africa in particular—this conflict-afflicted region. This led the Catholic humanitarian charity CAFOD to say in a statement on 31 May this year:
“This is a shameful betrayal of the people suffering and, despite their claims, shows the government is not taking this crisis seriously”.
Now that both Labour and the Conservatives are not going to immediately restore the 0.7% lawful target after the next general election, when does the Minister forecast that the UK will return to the level of support for famine relief that we had before the cuts?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I look around this Chamber, I am sure we are all very much at one on the noble Lord’s earlier point about the Wagner Group. Proscribing a group, as I have always said from this Dispatch Box, is a sensitive issue that needs to be measured. I pay tribute to our colleagues in the Home Office who took that considered approach to ensure that all legal avenues were covered. I am pleased that has now taken place. The group caused instability in the very regions the noble Lord mentioned. We are making assessments to see whether that makes a difference. Personally, I do not think it will make that much difference in terms of its structures: I am sure it will have some kind of contingency in place.
On the wider point, of course there has been a limit to what we have been able to spend with the reduction from 0.7% to 0.5%. We are committed to restoring that at the earliest opportunity when the fiscal situation allows, but at the same time we recognise that the United Kingdom has continued to support many communities across the Sahel, further afield in Africa and indeed in Asia, on some of the key priorities that we remain very much aligned with.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
The Minister used the phrase,
“at the earliest opportunity when the fiscal situation allows”.
Would he care to elaborate on exactly what that means?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
“Earliest” means at the earliest time possible, and “fiscal situation” means when our finances allow us to. I think the noble Lord knows that already.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
The Minister is so experienced and has been in the job a long time. He must know better than anyone in this House when that is likely to be. Can he tell us?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
This is when you look upwards for divine inspiration, notwithstanding being a person of faith. In all seriousness, it is important that a decision was taken that was not an easy one but a challenging one. The fact is that, even with our 0.5%, we have continued to support many communities around the world. As I said, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will look to return to 0.7% at the earliest opportunity. We are going through very challenging times, both domestically and internationally, and I am proud of the fact that we have continued to stand by many of our international obligations, especially when it comes to helping the most vulnerable around the world.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, as the president of the International Rescue Committee rightly noted, conflict is one of the primary drivers of food insecurity around the globe, so what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking, in co-operation with our partners, to convene dialogue and work with local peacebuilders and faith leaders to help in areas of conflict?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
We are working in many areas, including an area in which I lead on the initiative of preventing sexual violence in conflict. Famine is a key driver of conflict; we all recognise that. That is why I said in my original Answer that our Permanent Representative in New York briefed the Security Council, which is purposed to look at conflict alleviation and to prevent conflict in the first place. We are working with faith leaders and civil society organisations in key areas and key countries on the ground. In Yemen, for example, near neighbours include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We are engaging in places such as Afghanistan, where faith leaders have an important role. Some of this is discreet and we cannot go into the detail, to protect and support those who are working on the ground, but I assure the right reverend Prelate that we are doing exactly that.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, one of the things David Miliband also mentioned, on conflict being the driver, is that there is so much impunity and that the world needs to act when people commit horrendous crimes against humanity. We should stop just using words and take action. Does he agree with David Miliband’s statement in that regard?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is not just David Miliband who says that; we all agree that there must be accountability and justice for those who suffer and for survivors of whatever violence takes place. That is why I am proud, as I said on the earlier Question about Ukraine, that among the many areas that the United Kingdom is now supporting, we are supporting Ukraine on exactly that—during the conflict, on justice and accountability. As the noble Lord knows, we are working with key organisations, including the International Criminal Court, to ensure that those who commit these terrible, abhorrent crimes are brought to justice at the earliest point possible.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Russians having broken the agreement about grain shipments, which will obviously have a major impact, has the international community given any consideration to measures that can be taken to help resolve the problem caused by that lack of grain now shipping out of Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have two points to make. First, on the broader point on issues of food insecurity, we in your Lordships’ House and in the other place all need to ensure that that narrative is established. Russia says erroneously that it is sanctions that are causing the humanitarian crisis. As all noble Lords know, every sanction that has been applied has a humanitarian carve-out. The grain initiative was an innovative initiative sponsored by the UN, where Turkey played an important role, and with the likes of Turkey we are ensuring that we can restore this initiative because it provides support to many. Let us put this into a context that needs to be understood: 400 million people across the world used to get their grain from Ukraine, which is why this initiative is so important.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, Russia has attacked grain stores along the Danube. Will my noble friend make sure that we carefully record this crime against humanity when it comes to the reckoning?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as ever my noble friend is absolutely right, and I agree with him. I assure him that we are doing exactly that with key partners. The challenge has also been, when we look at the Danube, that some attacks are on territory currently controlled by Russia. A full assessment is being made on certain parts of the infrastructure, not just the grain. As he knows, various elements have caused environmental pollution; pollutants have gone into the Danube and are feeding into the Black Sea as well. There will be a real environmental challenge to face, post the war, but I assure him that we are working with key partners to ensure that this can be addressed. Importantly, those who have influence over Russia should provide access so that assessments can be made.
Commonwealth Games
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent decisions by the governments of (1) Victoria, Australia, and (2) Alberta, Canada, to withdraw from bids to host the Commonwealth Games in 2026 and 2030.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government recognise the great value of major sporting events such as the Commonwealth Games, particularly with the United Kingdom having hosted the Games twice in the past decade. Last year’s Games in Birmingham demonstrated the power of sport in bringing people together and building a foundation for a wide-ranging legacy that will deliver benefits for many years to come. We therefore urge the Commonwealth Games Federation to work towards a sustainable resolution for 2026 and 2030.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
I thank the Government very much for their urgency in trying to ensure that we find a solution: I hope that we see that in the weeks and months to come. The Commonwealth Games are a fabulous exhibition of the benefit of the Commonwealth and the coming together of many nations from right across the globe. They are one of the most popular and successful multisport international events that we see. In both Birmingham and Glasgow in the past decade, we have seen not just the sporting benefits but the economic benefits of the Games to the cities and the wider regions. So, will the Government work with the national teams of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland to make sure that they rule out no options in order to deal with this immediate emergency of the Games not having a host for 2026? Will they also work with other Governments in the Commonwealth and with the Commonwealth Games Federation to make sure that, in the long term, the Commonwealth Games are able to be hosted by countries that are not the large, richer, white countries of the Commonwealth but are other countries in the Commonwealth, so that “commonwealth” goes back into the Commonwealth Games?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, we absolutely agree with the noble Lord. It is important that the Games remain a truly global Games. He is right to point to the economic benefits as well as the many other benefits that hosting the Games can accrue; he will know this very well, of course, from his own involvement with the successful Glasgow Games in 2014. Our interim assessment of the Games in Birmingham last year shows that they added £870 million of GVA to the UK economy, more than half of that going to the West Midlands, and we look forward to the fuller economic analysis coming soon. My right honourable friend the Sports Minister has met the Commonwealth Games Federation to talk about the urgency with which it is looking at this issue and we are keen for it to find a resolution.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, is quite right. Will the Government work very closely with Marlborough House and the secretariat to ensure that there is momentum behind recovery, and we do not let the Games just die? Will his colleagues bear in mind that the Commonwealth network is in many ways our own gateway to the great markets of Asia and Africa, as well as a bulwark against Chinese domination in the developing world? We need them just as much as they need us.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend, who is a strong supporter of the Commonwealth, makes a very valuable point about the Games’ geopolitical importance as well the great fun they involve for everyone taking part and the legacy they can bring in terms of sports participation and economic benefit. We are speaking to the Commonwealth Games Federation, which makes the decision here, but it is an issue we will of course raise with the Commonwealth at every appropriate level.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Sport Wales and I also competed at three Commonwealth Games at the beginning, middle and end of my career. We should not forget that the Manchester inclusive Games played a big part in us winning 2012. What assessment has been made of the impact on disability sport of potentially losing the Games, as they do have a significant role to play in developing talented British athletes?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Your Lordships’ House benefits from sports people who have competed at every level, and I am glad that the noble Baroness has made her point. We hope that we do not lose the Games; we are working with the Commonwealth Games Federation to ensure that the Games go ahead and there is a sustainable resolution for both 2026 and 2030. She is right to point to their importance in the sporting pipeline for people of all abilities, and that is why we would like to see them continue.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I accept that this is not the direct responsibility of the Government, except Chancellor as a leading member of the Commonwealth. Does the Minister believe that this disaster may be the responsibility of the Commonwealth Secretariat, which has not handled it terribly well, or does he believe that the Games have become a financial extravaganza, way beyond the days when my noble friend Lord Campbell participated? May I cheekily ask whether he believes it would help if the Commonwealth Games followed the recent proposal of the Olympic Committee to add cricket to the roster of games played?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Governments of Alberta and Victoria have cited cost as a reason for their decision. That is curious in the light of Birmingham’s experience, where the Games came in £70 million under budget and the Government gave that money to the West Midlands Combined Authority to spend on a variety of important initiatives, including cultural and sporting ones, in that part of the UK. So it is possible to deliver a Games that everyone can enjoy, as they did in Birmingham, on time and on budget, and we are very happy to share the lessons of Birmingham’s successful hosting with those who might want to bid. My right honourable friend the Sports Minister has been speaking to the federation about learning those lessons.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this has happened a few times before. Can the Minister ensure that His Majesty’s Government do more to facilitate discussions on the future direction of the competition? Does it need to be reinvented somehow or does more thought need to be given to reducing the costs to hosts? Would it perhaps be more sustainable if the frequency of the Games was varied to match economic needs? Thinking about my own city, which has finally entered the Europa League this year, there are clear economic benefits demonstrated from hosting events like that. Are the Government doing enough to promote participation in wider international sporting competitions so that we can reap the benefit of the economic boost they bring to our country?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, we fully recognise the important economic boost that hosting major sporting events can bring. Sport is estimated to be worth over £38 billion a year to our economy. The hosting of the women’s Euros in 2022 generated economic activity of £81 million across the eight host cities that welcomed visitors and supported 1,200 full-time equivalent jobs. It also saw a 140% increase in participation among girls in the season after the tournament—so the benefits are manifold. The Commonwealth Games Federation is exploring all options to secure the long-term viability of the Commonwealth Games. It has committed to putting a firmer plan in place by the time of its general assembly in November.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will know that the highly successful 1908 summer Olympics in London was a multisport event that ran for seven months, with many sports being organised sequentially. Given how expensive it is to run the Commonwealth Games and how few countries can afford to do so, would the Government consider supporting a Commonwealth Games where different Commonwealth countries were invited to host different sporting events in the same year? It would make the Games a great festival of Commonwealth sport that would be more affordable and would allow more sports and more countries to be added to the Games’ agenda.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I missed the Games that my noble friend mentioned at the outset of his question, but his suggestion is a good one. The Commonwealth Games Federation is looking at all options. It is important that the Games remain a truly global event and I will pass on his very sensible suggestion to my right honourable friend the Sports Minister.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the increase in sports participation that followed the Commonwealth Games. Typically, there is also a rise in volunteering, and we know from 2012 that sadly this was not sustained after the Games. What lessons were learned from that, and did we see a rise in volunteering around the Birmingham Commonwealth Games that we will see sustained?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Our full impact assessment of the Birmingham Games will follow early in the new year, so I will draw out the points the noble Baroness rightly raises. The legacy of hosting these major events is manifold. There was a brilliant cultural programme that sat alongside the Birmingham Games and was enjoyed by millions of people around the world watching on television, as well as those who visited in person. That is exactly why we are so proud to host such large events.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is entirely possible to have an economic model that works for Commonwealth Games, as has been seen in Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester? Would he like to remind the House that when good Games become great Games there is an economic, educational, environmental, social, sporting and infrastructure legacy for decades to come?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend and would remind your Lordships’ House that the Birmingham Games came in £70 million under budget. They brought great joy to everyone who watched them and participated, and they were done with great economic success.
Asylum Seekers: Channel Crossings
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, our published data shows that, so far, a total of 7,349 people made asylum claims in the United Kingdom from 1 January to 30 June 2023, having made a dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossing of the channel by small boat. The figure for the same period in 2022 is 12,374. This represents a decline of 41%.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I think the Minister would concede that the weather has played a large part in the movement of numbers, and in most recent days the numbers have been pretty high. Is it not the case that, of those arriving in small boats in the last year, only 1% have had their asylum claim actually decided, and that the number of people forcibly returned who failed the asylum test has gone down very much compared to recent years? What do a Government do when their policies manifestly fail? They blame the lawyers, as the Immigration Minister did a couple of days ago when he threatened lawyers with life imprisonment if they gave advice to asylum seekers. We have surely sunk to a low level when it has come to that.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
On the three points the noble Lord raises, first, I do not accept that the decline is entirely down to the weather. One will have seen that, even in the comparator week of 2022 to this week of September, small boat arrivals are very significantly down, by a sum in the region of 20%. As to his second point, on returns, there is very good news to tell. So efficient now are our returns of Albanians that the number of Albanians crossing the channel has reduced in excess of 90%. As to his final point, on lawyers, abusing our asylum process by providing accounts to individuals to falsely claim asylum is a problem. Noble Lords will have seen the reporting in relation to that. Any responsible Government would agree that this is a dreadful crime which prioritises those who have no claim over those who would have a good claim. This Government take very seriously their obligations towards stopping that kind of abuse by those few practitioners who behave in this fashion. That is why we have set up the enablers task force, which will bring together all the information, allowing for the prosecutions of these people.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we are told by the Government that 46% of asylum seekers reach here by small boat. Can the Minister tell us how the other 54% arrive?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
They arrive usually on visas, such as student or work visas, or they overstay on other types of visas.
Lord Winston (Lab)
The Minister used the phrase that their journey was “dangerous, illegal and unnecessary”. I wonder if he would be kind enough to consider retracting the word “unnecessary”, because it suggests some prejudice as to what we do not know about why people are coming in these waters under such danger, and under great hardship.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The journeys are unnecessary, and I stand by that. If they are leaving from France or Belgium, they are in a safe country—a signatory of the refugee convention. They can make their refugee asylum claims in those countries. The journey across the channel is dangerous and illegal and they should not do it; it is unnecessary.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, last month’s High Court judgment said that the Home Office’s national transfer scheme for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children was failing. The judge said that neither the Home Office, nor Kent County Council, knew where many—possibly hundreds—of the children were, let alone if they were safe, as required under the Children Act 1989. Will the Minister agree to return to the House to explain what it is now doing in the light of that judgment?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The House will recall that yesterday evening and yesterday morning we canvassed these topics previously. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the House is considering the judgment of Mr Justice Chamberlain in that case, and steps are being taken to ensure that the national transfer scheme operates efficiently. As the noble Baroness will appreciate, once the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is in force, the numbers crossing the channel will be lower and the numbers of UASC entering through the channel route will be reduced. Therefore, the problem should ameliorate.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister rightly drew attention to the agreement to return Albanians to their home country. The Government themselves claim that 30% of previous arrivals were from Albania. If we take those Albanian returns out, the statistics that have been enunciated this morning are very different from the ones that the Minister was seeking to present, given that the latest stats I have are that, last year, only 10% of those arriving were processed but of those some 86% were granted asylum. That puts a very different picture on the rhetoric that is coming from the Government at the moment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I say, the history of effecting returns has been difficult hitherto, as it was under the previous Labour Administration. However, I am glad to say that returns are now being effected very successfully to those countries with which we have an agreement, such as Albania, as identified by the noble Lord. Further work will be done in relation to that. Of course, once we have the outcome of the Supreme Court litigation, and the avenue of removal to a safe third country is available, one would anticipate that the number of removals will increase.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister please elaborate on when he expects the Illegal Migration Act to be in force, because it makes lawful the Home Office accommodation of children who obviously are not going be returned under that Act? Could he outline to noble Lords whether there will be statistics about where children actually end up once the Act is in force? Will we know whether they are in hotels, or whether they are under the care of the local authority?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I have no doubt that the Home Office will provide statistics, as it does at the moment, on a regular basis. As to the indication of when the provisions of the Illegal Migration Act in relation to transfer come into force, that depends on a number of variables, not least the position in relation to the litigation. However, I am sure that I will be able to revert to the House in due course with news on that.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Could my noble friend expand on the answer that he gave the noble Lord, Lord German, about the 54%? A number of us were slightly baffled by what he said—could he expand on that?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Of asylum claims made in the 12-month period ending June 2023, 46% were made by those who were entering illegally via a small boat. The remainder were made up of other types of illegal entry—for example, in a lorry, or those who have come to Britain by a lawful route with their tourist, work or study visa and then claimed asylum when they were here, or overstayed a visa when they were here legally. I hope that explains to my noble friend how that figure was arrived at.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, further to previous questions from my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, the Minister has spoken of doing more to disrupt the actual supply of small boats, which are often flimsy and extremely dangerous. The Minister facilitated a visit for me to see this first hand, which I was very grateful for. Last night, he said that the Home Office is speaking with the French about what to do about this, because it is a real problem. On a practical level, why is it that we cannot do more to disrupt the supply of these small boats, which are not manufactured in France? Can the Minister update the House on what is happening with that?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I agree with much of what the noble Lord says. Clearly, disruption upstream of the criminal gangs is really important. Minister Jenrick visited Turkey in the last few weeks and the Turks have agreed, with the UK Government, to facilitate work to disrupt the criminal gangs. I understand that a lot of the boats are made in Turkey and a lot of the parts come through there, so that will be a vital part of the battle against the gangs. My right honourable friend the Minister for Security visited Iraq with the same objective. This is an important part of the strategy in fighting the upstream element of the gangs. Working with the French is something that is ongoing, and is one of the benefits of the agreement that the Prime Minister made earlier in the year. I am very grateful for the question.
Armed Forces
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Soames of Fletching
That this House takes note of the role of the Armed Forces and the United Kingdom’s defence policy.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, I am very honoured to be entrusted to introduce this debate on our Armed Forces and the United Kingdom’s defence policy, at a time when we and our allies find ourselves in a very grave, unstable and uncertain period. I declare my interest as honorary colonel of C Squadron, The Royal Yeomanry—the Kent and Sharpshooters Yeomanry. Members of the regiment are currently deployed on operations in support of the Royal Lancers, in our commitment to NATO’s enhanced forward presence in Poland, and in support of the Household Cavalry on Operation TOSCA in Cyprus. It is worthy of note that, over the past three years, the Royal Yeomanry has deployed in excess of 150 Army Reserve soldiers in support of operations and other defence tasks overseas—it is a fine record indeed.
We have witnessed the unfolding reality and cost, in both men and materiel, of the high-intensity land battle in Ukraine. That has brought home to the United Kingdom that our country needs to pay far greater attention to defence and resilience, both civilian and military—and, especially importantly, to maintaining and sustaining our capabilities. But the sad truth, as we all know, is that, given the threats and circumstances, we are not spending enough money on defence. We now have very small Armed Forces and, unless we invest at scale and capacity, we risk being left behind by the United States and other allies and, frankly, no longer able to play the kind of role that we should in the world.
We are all only too well aware of the grave dangers ahead. The war in Ukraine is certainly not the only challenge we face: there are the global ambitions of China, including as a military power, and there continues to be instability in the Middle East and serious instability in Africa. We have important interests to protect and defend. At the same time, as I am sure my noble friend Lady Helic will tell this House, we need to pay far greater attention to shoring up other areas, such as the Balkans, where Russia exhibits every day its malign intent and where, frankly, we have not acted perhaps as quickly and robustly as we should.
All these disparate risks should command our concentration with the same clarity, focus and decisiveness that we devote to Ukraine. These issues are of the first importance to our Armed Forces, our intelligence services and our Diplomatic Service, and they daily grow more serious and complex. It is an important lesson for us to hoist aboard that we cannot complain from the sidelines about the erosion of the international rules-based order if we are not willing to play a large role in defending it. Indeed, it is a great irony that, as the West becomes more risk averse, so the world becomes more unstable before our eyes.
One of the most admirable things about this House is the extraordinary depth of expertise in defence, intelligence, diplomacy and all the other vital aspects of statecraft. There are speakers following me today who have far greater knowledge and far more important things to say than I, about strategy, technology, equipment, capacity and, above all, sustainability. After all, Ukraine has crystallised what machinery, technology and munitions for war in the 21st century look like; there is no sanctuary on the modern battlefield.
For my own part, I will say a few words about the service men and women. First, I pay a warm tribute to the service families, for whom life is not always easy and whose accommodation is sometimes inadequate, but who keep the home fires burning. We should be very grateful to them. The extraordinary range of roles in the Armed Forces should remind us that none of this would be possible without the consistent and unfailing support of Armed Forces families. Across the world, whether training or on operations, our service men and women, including our Reserve Forces, often operate in hostile environments and endure real hardships and, sometimes, considerable danger. They operate and train in all sorts of environments and extremes across the world against every conceivable threat, and their success is testimony to their hard work, dedication, tenacity and resourcefulness. They are an immense credit to this country.
I also pay a very warm tribute—as I am sure the House will want to—following his departure, to our friend the Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, who did a wholly exceptional job, not least in making the Government realise that expenditure on defence is not discretionary. I also pay a very warm tribute to his excellent colleagues James Heappey, the Member for Wells, who is an outstanding Minister for the Armed Forces, and my noble friend Lady Goldie, who commands, for very good reason, such profound respect in this House. Ben Wallace’s support for Ukraine has been nothing short of admirable—an approach which I hope will continue.
Service men and women see only bad news in the papers. Inevitably, the press tends to concentrate, understandably and not without good reason, on some of the catastrophic procurement disasters and other things that go wrong—they are inevitable on such a big scale and in a very big department. But what they and the world do not see is the consistently high standard of the service men and women, who, through realistic and robust training, prepare themselves for war. For the soldiers, sailors and airmen of today and tomorrow, as for their forebears, warfare will continue to represent the ultimate physical and moral challenge. They will encounter extreme danger in rapidly changing circumstances, amid conditions of chaos and uncertainty. Their skills and the quality of their leadership, weapons and equipment will be severely tested. Such operations are sustainable only by highly trained men and women motivated by the ethos of their services, by pride and loyalty to their traditions and institutions, by their unfailing and almost magical comradeship and a remarkable level of team spirit, and by the emotional, intellectual and moral qualities which lead people to put their lives on the line. That, at the end of the day, is what defence and debates on defence are all about. I remind this House of what Lord Wavell said in his famous lecture on generalship:
“in the last resort, the end of all military training, the settling of all policy, the ordering of all weaponry and all that goes into the makings of the armed forces is that the deciding factor in battle will always be this. That sooner or later, Private so-and-so will, of his own free will and in the face of great danger, uncertainty and chaos, have to advance to his front in the face of the enemy. If all that goes wrong, after all the training, the intensive preparation and the provision of equipment and expenditure, the system has failed”.
To that end, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, who I know take defence seriously, have a profound obligation to ensure that our Armed Forces are properly resourced for the hugely demanding and increasing tasks that are laid on them. With great respect, they should realise with humility how extraordinarily lucky we are to have such exceptional Armed Forces, and that none of this happens by magic and cannot just be regenerated on the spot at a whim. At every level of command in all three services and throughout all ranks, they are truly formidable in their standards, both personally and professionally, in their teamwork and in their highly developed sense of cohesion, duty and obligation. They are an institution that is a priceless asset for this great country in the pursuit of our aims and interests, both at home and abroad.
It is an enormous credit to the quality of the leadership of the services that, in a period of unprecedented upheaval, they have managed to retain exceptional flexibility, combined with great clarity of purpose and endeavour. They deserve our whole-hearted support in every way that we can give it. I beg to move.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for moving this debate. The world is more dangerous and unpredictable than at any time in my 58 years on the active list—a major war is actually taking place in Europe—and yet defence is not often discussed in this Chamber. I hope that will change. I must also make it clear—notwithstanding what I may say about defence shortfalls, and before the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, accuses me of being disloyal to the service I love—that our men and women in the Armed Forces are the best in the world, our Armed Forces are able to conduct almost the whole gamut of military operations and some of our equipment is the best in the world.
But, notwithstanding the siren voices of the Front Bench declaring otherwise, the defence budget is too small. In his resignation letter, Ben Wallace—who, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soames, should be congratulated on his service to the United Kingdom and global security—stated that the Government have viewed the defence budget as “discretionary spend” and made savings “by hollowing out”. Indeed, he has made constant reference to his concerns over the hollowing out of the Armed Forces and I could list numerous examples today that affect our fighting capability because of that. In his letter, Wallace added:
“I genuinely believe that over the next decade the world will get more insecure and more unstable … now is the time to invest”.
The vast majority of military experts, many of whom are in this House, would agree and consider that defence expenditure should rise significantly, as it has in numerous other countries. The Prime Minister’s letter in response to Wallace’s letter is not that reassuring, talking of defence funding being “on a stable footing” and expressing an aspiration—not a commitment—to reach 2.5% of GDP on defence spending. I believe we urgently need an increase of about £8 million in the defence budget and an immediate commitment to the defence budget being 3% of GDP.
The cry from the Treasury and others will be that there are huge inefficiencies in MoD spending and that by resolving these no extra funding will be required. While it would be foolish to deny that there is scope for efficiency savings—because there is—this will not cover the problem. Yes, we need to speed up and rationalise our procurement system—let us face it, there have been some terrible disasters, Ajax being one currently on the go—and an agreed defence industrial strategy and focus on timely delivery of systems with realistic penalties if not met would help, but defence has suffered from continual so-called efficiency measures for years that in reality are cuts that have reduced military capability. For example, measures taken by the coalition in 2010 reduced our nation’s military capability by one-third and I do not believe that the nation realised that that was done.
Strong armed forces are a crucial deterrent and therefore prevent war. They also have utility in a number of other ways, particularly in terms of national resilience. But in the final analysis they are there to fight and win against the King’s enemies who wish to do our people and our nation harm. That is their prime aim and what they are there for. It seems that recently important social issues have distracted the senior decision-makers in the MoD, who should not forget that a single, unambiguous aim is the keystone of successful military operations and the master principle of war.
The MoD’s other affliction is what I call millennial business speak. What do noble Lords think of the following from the recently produced Maritime Operating Concept?
“Alongside the RN Strategy, it describes the Wise Pivot of the Maritime Force, from a platform-based, role-specific, and aggregated Fleet, to a distributed protean force, operating as a system of systems”.
Lord Nelson gave the following guidance:
“But, in case Signals can neither be seen or perfectly understood, no Captain can do very wrong if he places his Ship alongside that of an Enemy”.
It may lack nuance but is a little easier to understand.
I am sure other Members of the House, with their great knowledge, will identify many areas where hollowing out is affecting our capability. I did not intend doing that and noble Lords will be amazed that I have not mentioned ships—sorry, I just have. My message is that with all the other pressures on resources—and I realise they are huge—we can no longer avoid the hard decision that significantly more needs to be spent on defence if we are to ensure the security and wealth of our nation. After all, it is the prime responsibility of any Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, it is difficult to assess what size and structure of Armed Forces Britain needs without a coherent understanding of Britain’s place in a very rapidly changing world. The last Prime Minister but one was an enthusiast for turning away from commitment to the European region, with a tilt to the Indo-Pacific, for which we would need a larger Navy, and expeditionary forces able to operate at long range from the UK. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought attention back to European security and two changes of Prime Minister have lessened the underlying antagonism to co-operation with our neighbours, but no strategic foreign policy has emerged from recent Foreign Secretaries or Prime Ministers.
For as many years as I can remember, British foreign policy has been based on the foundation of British-American partnership, with the effectiveness of our defence forces judged by how seriously the Pentagon takes our contribution. We have to face the real prospect now that our partnership with the USA may be withering. The next presidential election could bring back Donald Trump, or see a Democratic President hamstrung by a Republican Congress sceptical of supporting Ukraine and content for European states, including the UK, to defend themselves, as we hear presidential candidates saying.
It has to be a foundational principle of British defence policy, therefore, to share in maintaining the security of our own region, extending as far as the Mediterranean, north Africa, the Baltic, the Arctic and the Black Sea. In practice, our forces have co-operated closely with the French, Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians and others for many years. A Conservative Secretary of State once said to me: “I don’t mind our doing that, so long as we don’t have to tell anyone”. I think he meant his own Back-Benchers and the right-wing press. It is high time that we made the best of working with our neighbours and recognised that in a context in which we can hardly afford to maintain the pretence of a full-range defence capability, our security is best protected by sharing tasks, training and equipment.
Part of the long-term problem of UK defence procurement has been that the effort to match the Americans in high-end war capability has led to rising costs, changing specifications and overcomplex weapons systems produced in small numbers and unattractive to export markets. One of the lessons of the conflict in Ukraine is that a larger number of lower-capability weapons may be worth more than a handful of sophisticated systems so expensive that commanders hesitate before committing them to action. The more sophisticated the systems are, the more likely that they will break down. Our Navy now consists mainly of a small number of highly sophisticated ships, many of which seem to break down frequently. Ukraine is teaching us that rapid adaptation of far cheaper and simpler civilian systems can make a real difference, and that larger numbers of units count in both attack and defence.
Another lesson of the Ukraine conflict is that you do not have to train military forces for long periods in order for them to be effective, particularly when commanders can draw on skills already acquired in civilian life. For centuries, British forces have been based on the assumption that we need long-term professional engagement for expeditionary service abroad, and that reserves are of doubtful use and unlikely to be ready in time for any unexpected crisis. As the size of our Armed Forces continues to shrink, there is a powerful case for a substantial increase in reserves.
The noble Lord, Lord Soames, mentioned the yeomanry. I am conscious of the contribution that forces from the London Scottish, now a reserve company of the Scots Guards, have made in recent years. They are valuable—they can make an enormous contribution. Ministers should now be emphasising the positive role that well-trained reserves play in strengthening the UK’s security and expanding the reserves.
The need for home-based reserve forces becomes even clearer when we take into account the importance of improving the UK’s resilience in the face of a changing pattern of threats. We have far fewer organised groups to assist with civil contingencies than many of our neighbours, let alone the USA. Assistance to the civil power used to be a significant part of the responsibilities of our forces, but they are now too small to fulfil that role.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord West, said, little can be achieved without more money. So long as the overall priority of the Government and of the Conservative Party behind them is to cut taxes, and therefore to hold down public spending across the board, little can be done to improve our security and resilience. If the choice is between an early tax cut or an improvement in our national security, which will the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party choose?
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for securing this debate. It is very timely, as I worry that the capabilities of our Armed Forces are getting seriously out of balance with the ambitions of our defence policy.
Why do I say that? I suppose that one of the many benefits of being a Member of this House is that you get a free copy of the New Statesman every week. The copy I received just before the House went into Summer Recess contained an article by George Eaton on the fears of British decline. A quick summary of that article is that Britain is in relative decline, and that the decline is not historic or terminal. Importantly, however, the point the article makes is that we will not revise or reverse that decline through the alchemy of a small number of transformative breakthroughs. The idea that we can quickly become a science superpower, a global leader in green tech or the world’s entrepreneurial powerhouse are simply not feasible if you represent only 2% of global manufacture and global research and development.
The article made a simple footballing analogy: if you are sitting towards the lower end of the Premier League, you cannot suddenly reach the top by investing in one or two expensive players. Rather, you need to embark on a strategy of overall improvement. On reading the article, I reflected on the state of the UK’s Armed Forces and this forthcoming debate.
I start with the reassurance that our Armed Forces are definitely still in the premiership. However, we are also in the 2% club, we are in relative decline, we definitely suffer from a belief in the magic of various alchemies—digital, technological, doctrinal—and we have increasingly adopted a strategy of investment in a few very big players that we struggle to afford.
To add some flesh to this, our world-leading attributes probably consist of the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, the carrier-strike capability, our special forces, the overall quality of our people—as has been mentioned—and our ability to stage state ceremonial that is still the envy of the world. I worry that such capabilities are born more of a continuing desire to parade the totemic instruments of global authority rather than being the product of a cold-hearted analysis of defence need based on current threats and resource realities. I also fear that the excellence of such capabilities generates to an extent a misplaced public confidence in the Armed Forces as a whole.
To return to footballing parallels, the team has some wonderful players, we retain the ability to win some memorable games, but we do not have a big enough squad, we have some lousy kit and some very poor facilities, and we have no meaningful reserves, either human or material. We are not designed for resilience or deterrence.
What should we do? I fear that the Defence Command Paper was, perhaps understandably, an exercise if not in deception then at least in public and self-delusion. It seemed designed primarily to ingeniously reassure rather than honestly inform. What is needed is more blunt honesty about the need to resource defence appropriately and to apply those resources to a programme of holistic betterment, but, most of all, to set a realistic ambition for our nation.
As far as resources are concerned, I do not believe that the Government have developed a compelling strategic narrative to convince our society of the need to spend more on defence. Perhaps I worry in part because they do not themselves believe in such a narrative; hence, they are happy to publish illusions. As far as betterment is concerned, we need an holistic programme of reform that covers defence procurement, the relationship with the defence industrial base, the Reserve Forces, war-fighting resilience and the condition of defence infrastructure, including married quarters.
However, above all is the need to set a more realistic national ambition. At least part of the reason why Russia invaded Ukraine was that Putin did not think that NATO, and by inference the UK, had the capability or resolve to do anything about it. To an extent, he may have been proved wrong. However, the fact that Putin made that assumption means that our conventional deterrence posture lacked credibility.
I fear that we have forgotten the reality that defence is built largely on a paradigm. The greater the investment made in capability, the less likely it is that you will need to use it. Deterring war is a far less expensive option than fighting it, even by proxy. Therefore, the stark choice we face is either to increase resources or to reduce ambition. I fear that the alternative is incoherence and accelerating decline.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I start by reminding your Lordships’ House of my various interests in the Armed Forces and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for introducing this excellent debate. I sense already that a common theme is building.
I have spent the first part of this week in Poland at its defence trade fair in my capacity as the Government’s Defence Export Advocate. It was impossible not to feel a real sense of urgency in Poland’s desire to modernise its Armed Forces as a result of the events in Ukraine. Impressively, Poland is set to spend 4.2% of its GDP on defence, and defence is one of the key battlegrounds in its upcoming general election. Interestingly, the more than doubling of defence spend is being spent not only modernising equipment but on increasing the size of its Armed Forces, and in particular its territorial defence reserve, which is set to increase in size from 32,000 to 50,000.
Poland recognises that one of the lessons from Ukraine is the need for a strong reserve, and that throughout history, not just in Ukraine, wars are started with regulars but finished with reservists. Our NATO allies recognise that as well. France has announced that it is planning to more than double its reserves from 40,000 to 100,000, which includes a proposal for an industrial reserve corps to backfill defence industries with up to 2,000 reservists if they need to expand for war. Germany is also expanding to a 100,000 reserve, plus expanding the liability on others so that it can theoretically call on 950,000 reservists in extremis. The reservist retirement age is 65. Denmark is increasing reserves from the current manning of 28,500 to 62,200. Estonia has 4,000 active reserves, mirroring its 4,000 regular force, with 40,000 trained passive reserves and 230,000 enrolled on a mobilisation registry. There is a common theme: all our Allies’ reserve armies are potentially bigger than the regular force. It makes sense: reserves are a cost-effective way of maintaining mass and skills at an appropriate readiness.
So what, your Lordships may ask, is the situation in the United Kingdom? On paper, the Army Reserve is 32,000, with no plans to increase its size. In reality, it is smaller and declining in number every month. It was not always the case; following the Future Reserves 2020 review we saw major investment in our reserve, and, between 2015 and 2019, numbers of the Army Reserve grew substantially. It probably helped that the Minister for the Armed Forces at the time was particularly interested in reserves.
The Reserve Forces Review 2030 that I chaired tried to build on this “down and in” success by looking “up and out”, recognising that Reserve Forces are the ideal medium to access skills and talent that the regular force simply cannot hold. This, too, has been a success. Today’s Reserve is no longer just a contingent capability to be held at low readiness; it is also a pool of talented individuals, many of whom act as auxiliaries, bringing their skills to support defence on a daily basis. One of our proposals in the review was to adopt the concept of a spectrum of service for individuals, recognising that, throughout their working career, they should be able to move in and out of uniformed service—be that regular, Reserve or civilian life—gaining skills and experience without necessarily being penalised. Remarkably, sometimes it can be quite difficult for an ex-regular to join the Reserve.
I am delighted that this concept has been picked up by the recent Haythornthwaite review in terms of service with our Armed Forces, but if there is just one message that I hope noble Lords take away from my contribution, it is that today’s Army Reserve is a very different beast from the Territorial Army of the past, and contributes to defence outputs on a daily basis. I have every confidence that the current decline in Army Reserve numbers can be reversed, but the Reserve needs to be invested in both financially and conceptually.
I sensed at times that the Army was never quite sure what it wanted from its Reserve. The new NATO force model of graduated readiness is a building block for that clarity. However, there remain challenges to it. I will name but two. First, the MoD financial model always puts Reserves at risk. Reserves, unlike regulars, are a variable cost and Reserve service days are always at risk of being cut. Who would want to stay in the Reserves and not be able to train? Secondly, we always seek to mirror the Reserve to the regular force in both training and structure. I am delighted that the Army proposes to end that direct equivalence, and regulars and Reserves should integrate at the point of use in one Army, but have the flexibility to be organised and trained in different ways to suit the institutions.
I end by simply saying that, after 35 years of Army Reserve service, it will be my pleasure in October to enter what will be my last job in the Army, as director of Army Reserves—effectively the head of the institution—so this will probably be my last contribution on the Reserves in this forum, for a while at least. But I am clear what needs to be done and relish the challenge.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in opening, I associate myself with the words of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Soames of Fletching, for securing this important debate and add my words of admiration for his excellent introductory speech.
In essence, today’s debate is about the measurement of aspiration against reality. The simple questions are: does the UK have the military resource it needs to meet our obligations and can we, in fact, defend our country and its interests in a fracturing, increasingly multipolar world?
The Command Paper published in July outlined the geographical and strategic breadth of the challenges we face. Our ability to shape events in our favour depends on our military, our participation in NATO and other bilateral defence relationships and our new Indo-Pacific tilt. NATO is critical in this context. In theory, the UK is supposed to have the capacity to provide a warfighting division to NATO if needed. When asked about the readiness of our warfighting 3rd Division before the Defence Select Committee in July, the CDS responded by saying, that the “vehicles are really old”, the division is “lighter than we want” and that, in order to offer much more than a brigade in this scenario, we would need the gap to be filled by our allies.
Our position of influence within NATO is not static. If our capacity weakens, our influence will weaken with it. It is no accident that General Sir Tim Radford, who was, until July, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, warns that at present, cuts to the size of the UK’s Armed Forces mean that we are only “just holding on” to our leadership role within the alliance.
This reflects the consequences of a wider set of political choices. The number of total deployable active-duty personnel is smaller than the US Marine Corps and is smaller, in fact, than at any time since the Napoleonic Wars. A senior US general earlier this year said that the shrinking of numbers in our military meant that we were barely a tier 2 military power, let alone a realistic aspirant to tier 1 status.
The conflict in Ukraine has upended any hypothesis suggesting that sophisticated military technology has rendered the role of soldiers, sailors and airmen obsolete. I understand that, as in all areas of life, technology diminishes the need for human agency, but the size of our Armed Forces is still a factor in assessing their strength The British Armed Forces are simply too small. This is not a fringe or minority view, but one shared by several former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. It is especially concerning that we continue to face recruitment challenges even when overall numbers are so small. This is true across all three services, with figures to March this year showing an intake decline of 14.6% for the Army, 16.6% for the RAF and around 22% for the Navy. Like others, I hope that the Government’s response to the Haythornthwaite report will see significant progress made in this area.
In today’s economic context, spending decisions are not between good or bad, but between necessary and urgent. In preparation for these proceedings, I had occasion to look back at other recent debates, both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, on these issues. In addressing concerns around our military capacity, the ministerial answers I read frequently sought to encompass two irreconcilable positions. We have been told, often in the same statement, that economic stringency imposes regrettable restrictions on our ability to build the defence capacity we need, while being just as solemnly assured that our existing capacity is adequate, indeed ample, to meet all foreseeable needs. That is like having at the same time a Dickensian miser whispering in one ear and Dr Pangloss in the other. If our current capabilities are indeed ample, restrictions are not regrettable but responsible. If they are not, we must revise the scale of our ambition accordingly.
During my time as Secretary of State for Defence, I had the privilege to meet countless service personnel, and was always awed by their dedication, courage, patriotism and resilience. We often ask our troops to do the impossible, and with startling frequency they do just that. In speaking, I seek not to question their bravery but to ensure that the three services have what they need to engage with maximum effectiveness the challenges posed by our strategic adversaries.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as executive chairman of the Changing Character of War Centre at Pembroke College, Oxford—and that is the issue with which I start. The nature of war has not changed since ancient times. It involves the use of force and, arguably, the threat of the use of force, by one group against another. It also requires resistance by those under attack: without that resistance, there is merely a rout. War also implies an intensity and duration to the conflict. None of this is new and none of it has gone away. However, the character of war changes with each new technological and tactical development, but these do not necessarily obviate all previous technologies and tactics. This was the mistake of these so-called “new wars” theorists, who, in the 1980s and 1990s, announced that major wars were now obsolete: there would be terrorism and other attacks by non-state actors, but inter-state war was no longer an international policy option. This was wishful thinking.
Another mistaken view was expressed by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who in the other place in November 2021 claimed that the days of big tank battles and land wars in Europe were over, and mocked his party colleague Tobias Ellwood, the chairman of the Defence Select Committee, for expressing concern about the cuts to British military capabilities. Three months later, Russia invaded Ukraine.
Old methods are never given up completely. Wars started on land, moved to sea and then airspace, and now to the cyberspace created by human beings. We have added to the spaces where wars may be conducted, but we have not abandoned the original spaces. So it is with the technology of war. We add new ways of attacking and resisting, but the old ways always remain available. Be suspicious of the credibility of anyone who says otherwise.
My second point is that the use of force is the one area where the state must maintain a monopoly and a convincing capacity. With healthcare, education, transport and many other social requirements, we may wish, and increasingly have wished, the state to provide, supply and manage them, but in none of them is a state monopoly essential or even, in my view, desirable. With increasing internal disruption and defending against external attack, it is crucial that the state maintains its monopoly. The recent coup attempt by the Wagner mercenaries in Russia shows what happens when a state allows any other model of the management of physical force.
In addition, the naive assumption that major war has gone away and that government is merely about providing domestic services is seriously mistaken and dangerous. If adequate resources are not provided for the defence of our country and our interests abroad against internal and external threats, a time will come when we will not be able to protect ourselves against attack.
This became the case with Europe, which for decades largely left it to the United States to be its protective umbrella, but no country has friends and benefactors who can be depended upon permanently to fulfil such a role. Countries have allies who will work with them when it is in their interests, not friends who will sacrifice themselves for no other reason than friendship. Our defence collaboration was never going to be based on the EU but on NATO as a defence alliance—and one that we nearly lost through neglect.
Finally, I want to say something about people. There is currently a superficially attractive notion that, with technology, we will be able to defend ourselves with a diminishing corps of people in our military. This is very ill-advised. There are many arguments already being made in this debate about the need to have enough people to operate the ships, planes, tanks and computers that we need, as well as those who can be called upon to apply military discipline and organisation to assist the civil power with the increasing incidence of pandemics, natural disasters and, in some cases, I am afraid, civil disturbance and illegal immigration. However, there is another aspect to it. If a significant section of our population have served in some capacity, they, their families and their communities have a very special sense of the value of their country and the need to take risks and sometimes make sacrifices to protect it and to defend our freedoms, culture, way of life and interests abroad.
Many people in our country no longer understand the need for this. They think that we managed in the past and that technology will save us in the future. Others live in a world that they wish existed rather than in the troublesome world of humanity that actually exists, with all its dangerous and unsavoury characters as well as the good people. Still others assume that we are all rational actors who will, in the end, weigh up the social and economic costs and benefits and act on those. In the context of war and existential threat, we as individuals and communities become devoted actors, not rational actors. Indeed, if we do not, our community will likely not survive.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on securing this important and timely debate. I thank him for concentrating his remarks on the commitment and excellence of our soldiers, sailors, Air Force personnel and marines. As the war in Ukraine has demonstrated so starkly, it is the morale and determination of those in military uniform which results in success or failure on the battlefield.
However, we need to place what our excellent service people do on a daily basis in the context of the real world which is around us. The refresh of the integrated review earlier this year confirmed the tilt towards the Indo-Pacific and the need to support our allies and friends in that region in the face of an expansionist China. There is the unfinished business of confronting Islamist militancy in the Middle East and increasingly in Africa. Dominating across all environments is our support for Ukraine in defeating Russian aggression. This broadens out to our vital participation in NATO and other multinational commitments and the need for sustained deterrent deployments, such as in Estonia and Poland.
All this comes at a cost, especially in the land environment, which remains so poorly underinvested. In this month’s edition of the Army’s in-house magazine, Soldier, I was not surprised to read this:
“Talk to personnel in any section of the British Army at the moment and there is one piece of feedback you 'll hear over and over again; everyone is being asked to do more with less”.
Some will say it was ever thus, but I disagree. There have been times in the recent past when there was a balance between commitments and resources. Eventually this came right, at the height of the two campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that was with an Army of over 100,000 regular soldiers and an Army Reserve near its recruited strength of 30,000. Today, we are not engaged in major combat operations ourselves but the criticism is still there: everyone is being asked to do more with less.
Is it any wonder that there is this imbalance when the Regular Army is on course to reduce to 73,000 soldiers and the Army Reserve is down to around 26,000? The ultimate illustration of “more with less” must surely be the situation in 1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, a close-support artillery regiment in 3rd Division—supposedly our one deployable war-fighting division. That regiment has no operational guns. An artillery regiment with no guns is truly reminiscent of the inter-war years, when football rattles replaced machine guns in training.
I exaggerate somewhat to make my point. We have gifted 32-tracked AS90 self-propelled artillery guns to Ukraine, but what about the replacement capability? That is what the commanding officer of 1st RHA needs to tell his soldiers about. It is a Swedish system called Archer. We have bought 14 of these wheeled vehicles and, all being well, they will be in service next November. What about our tracked Warrior infantry fighting vehicles? There was no money for a mid-life upgrade, so they are to be retired and a wheeled alternative introduced instead. Is the plan to upgrade only 148 of our Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Challenger 3 capability enough? Frankly, I mind less about the reduction in our manpower than I do about the reduction in our equipment.
Of course, there are those who would say that armoured fighting vehicles are oh-so 20th century and that the future is with hi-tech drones, clever imagery and high-speed communications, and of course they are right. However, the sad and expensive fact of life that Chancellors and Defence Secretaries must confront is that, as the conflict in Ukraine is showing, the new ways of warfare are not replacing the old ways of warfare but complementing them. A blending of the old chin-to-chin slugging match is as important today as the hi-tech developments of the 21st century. Satellite-informed button-pressing long-range firepower is in lockstep today in Ukraine with brutal gutter-fighting with bayonet, grenade and short-range drones. There are no revolutionary silver bullets. We are told that there is to be an investment in Army programmes—the Future Soldier programme— but largely towards the end of the decade. Is that good enough or soon enough? In any event, that programme must not be subject to further cuts when the squeeze comes.
In the 1930s, there was the threat of a dictator rising in Europe. We chose to appease him. Too late, we began to re-arm. Mercifully, just in time, we produced enough fighter aircraft to win the Battle of Britain. However, the British Army, undermanned, undertrained, underequipped and transported in wheeled lorries, faced an armoured enemy that had embraced the then new technology of the main battle tank. In May and June 1940, our Army was defeated in France and escaped annihilation via Dunkirk. Today, there is a new dictator in Europe—not just a threat but a proven aggressor. Are we re-arming? Are we increasing our defence expenditure? Are we taking our defence responsibilities seriously? In 1935, we spent 3% of GDP on defence. Today, it is not even 2.5%. By 1939 we were spending 18%, and in 1940 it was 46%. Does history have to repeat itself? I sincerely hope not.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Bosnia-Herzegovina and as a member of the PSVI advisory board at the FCO. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Soames of Fletching for tabling this debate. At a time when we are facing the most complex geopolitical situation since the Cold War, and with the knowledge and experience of this House, which we have just witnessed, we should have a regular opportunity to debate and challenge our collective assumptions.
In the last decade, we have seen extraordinary changes take place: leaving the European Union, the occupation of part of a European country by its neighbour, the emergence of a more assertive and aggressive China, and new technologies changing the nature of war-fighting. Now we have a new Defence Secretary, who will have to master all this. However, as he faces new threats, some of our most serious challenges are persistent problems and some of them need conventional answers.
I will focus on two issues: the role of our Armed Forces in preserving peace and security in the western Balkans, as predicted by my noble friend Lord Soames, and the role that they can play in addressing conflict-related sexual violence.
Russia is engaged in political meddling and malign influence in the western Balkans, projecting influence through military assistance to its main partner, Serbia, while supporting the militarisation of the Bosnian entity of Republika Srpska. Lacking a direct military presence on the ground, Russia supports far-right nationalist organisations, a mix of organised crime and paramilitary groups, encouraging polarisation and stirring up anti-western sentiment. Its ultimate aim is to keep the region constantly unstable and under its influence. This is most visible in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which faces sustained attempts by Russian-backed secessionists to undermine its sovereignty and stability.
A war in Bosnia, were it to happen, would destabilise the region and bring with it the very scenario that we are keen to avoid: mass displacement of people in Europe, a breakdown of border control and renewed smuggling of people, arms and narcotics, let alone the loss of life and another war in Europe. This is a direct threat to the United Kingdom. To watch it unfold and not deter that scenario would go directly against our own assumptions in the recent Command Paper, which states:
“Putting more ships to sea, planes in air and people around the globe to operate in contested areas imposes costs on our adversaries, and ultimately—and crucially—reduces costs to ourselves”.
In the case of the western Balkans, we are talking not about ships or planes but about the redeployment of the British Army contingents that left EUFOR after Brexit, when we ceased our contribution to Operation Althea, the international military mission in support of a safe and secure environment in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I hope that the Government will show leadership and rejoin and bolster this critical stabilisation force to ensure that it provides a credible deterrent to violence. I hope my noble friend the Minister can share the Government’s assessment of the threat of instability in the western Balkans and what steps they deem necessary to address any such threat.
Conflict-related sexual violence destroys lives and undermines peace and security. It is not just an individual tragedy: it affects whole communities and nations and threatens prospects for long-term stability. We have seen it in Iraq, Syria, Myanmar and Ethiopia, recently in Ukraine and now, as I speak, once again in Darfur. Our Armed Forces must play their role in taking leadership in countering this heinous crime.
As part of the high-level review of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, the MoD made a commitment to ensure that, by November 2016, all pre-deployment training for our forces would include women, peace and security and PSVI in the agenda. I know that some of the Ukrainian troops being trained in the United Kingdom have received human security training. Can my noble friend confirm to the House that this commitment made in 2015 has been honoured and that this is still the case eight years later, and that it is a standard part of our training package, whether for our forces or in engagement with allied and partner forces?
I am running out of time, so I will say just one thing. Men and women of the Armed Forces defend and protect our freedom every day of every year. Much of that we never see, and we take it for granted. For that, we owe them and their families immense gratitude.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for his excellent starting point for this debate, which many of us on this side of the House would wholly agree with in every way. I do not have the experience of military service and defence questions that many Members of this House have, but I share the admiration that he expressed for the people in our armed services. When I was a humble adviser in No. 10, working on the defence review, Charles Guthrie, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, took me to Banja Luka in Bosnia to look at the conditions in which our people had to work. I had tremendous admiration for that. He then insisted that I go and get on board one of Admiral West’s frigates. Somehow or other, I managed to climb up a rope ladder to get on and take a look.
It was always a struggle then, in 1997 under the Blair Government, to argue for an increased defence budget. I believed then that we had to have a strong defence budget, and I believe it even more now. But there are always arguments and many other worthy claims—that we have to spend more on overseas aid, or that we have lots of child poverty and pensioner poverty to deal with. At the present conjuncture, our problem with public spending is that we face a huge demographic challenge with increased costs from pensions, health and social care, and the existential, longer-term challenge of climate change, which we have to address and will be expensive.
I must say that, in the present situation, I find all the chatter about tax cuts rather unrealistic—let us put it like that. I believe that we must have a stronger defence budget, but it will be difficult. If there is a change of Government, it will be as difficult on our side as it has been. I remember the sessions we had in No. 10 at every public spending round on what department budgets should be, and I was the only one of the political advisers in No. 10 who fought for a higher defence budget. Fortunately, I had a single ally—the Prime Minister. I hope we can get a bigger defence budget in the years ahead, but defence has to make the case for that. It has to reform where there are obvious weaknesses. We must shake up the procurement system and get on top of those problems.
Secondly, I agree totally with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, that we must have realism about what we can achieve in the world. We have to balance realism and resources in a sensible way. I am a bit sceptical about the return east of Suez: is that really where Britain should be putting its efforts? Reading the recent defence White Paper, I could not understand why we were increasing the size of our nuclear arsenal. We need a minimum deterrent—I have fought unilateralism all my life in politics—but our deterrent should be as minimal in cost as it possibly can be, yet the Government were proposing an increase in expenditure.
Here is the thing I worry about the most—I know that people have a long and noble history of Anglo-American co-operation and do not like this. I look at the opinion polls in the United States, and Biden might be 1% ahead of Trump. The prospect of another Trump presidency is very real. The prospect of a party that believes that America should become isolationist and withdraw from Europe is very real. We have to get our act together with our European partners. I know that this is difficult because of Brexit but, for me, this is an absolutely key priority in the defence field, given the situation we now face. So, yes, defence has to be a priority. It will be extremely difficult to make it one, but our future in Europe depends on it.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on his fine introduction to this important debate. Two MoD reports published this summer received much less attention than the revised DCP. These were concerned with personnel issues, the continuous attitude survey, and the very comprehensive Agency and Agility report. No matter how much is spent on equipment, fighting platforms and war stocks, none will be any use without the men and women of our Armed Forces who use their training, skills and commitment to use them. Personnel are often rightly singled out for praise and admiration by Ministers and others. In return, I believe Ben Wallace deserves praise for his fine performance as Defence Secretary at a particularly difficult time.
As time is short, I return to the Agency and Agility report. In the Written Statement to Parliament on 19 June 2023, the Minister agreed with the report’s analysis and conclusions. The author’s covering note to the Defence Secretary said that he knew that the Chiefs of Staff and other senior leaders were
“committed to the change set out in this report”.
The report sets forth with a following wind in its sails. I wonder whether it will reach its destination. The last major look at terms of service, and much else to do with personnel, was the Bett report way back in 1994-95. He recommended full acceptance and no cherry picking. It took the Government nearly two years to respond and more than a decade to implement, and then only in part. It is still early days, but have the Government set themselves any target date for a response?
In the vignettes at the end of the report, every individual is expressing job satisfaction. Yet this critical aspect, contributing to good morale, could be even better highlighted in the body of the report. Working for government will hardly ever be paid more than is likely to be available in the private sector for comparable tasks; it will probably be less, even when making adjustment for pension expectations. So the suggestion that expertise could be financially rewarded regardless of rank will not be the whole story. Rank, too, has status and reward, as well as more pay, as has job satisfaction and working as part of a team.
Long experience of adversity and antipathy to risk taking with public funds may raise difficulties with its encouragement, which Haythornthwaite, the author, proposes. His report recognised the importance in operations of the chain of command, underpinned by service ethos. He seems, perhaps unfairly, to ascribe less importance to ethos in peacetime settings. More thought is given to what is in it for the individual and less to what obligations and undertakings must be given in return to reflect the 24/7 commitment and the Armed Forces Act. His people valuation proposal must have this. It is unique for the Armed Forces. He uses a catchphrase several times to encapsulate his approach:
“Think big, start small, scale fast”.
For the MoD, or any government department, thinking big is a policy ambition. “Start small” is the classic pilot “see if it works” approach. But “scale fast” is rarer than hens’ teeth, maybe triggered only by a pandemic or war. Even the proxy war in Ukraine has not seen procurement scaled fast. Test of success of this report will be delivery of “scale fast”.
This timely report deserves a proactive approach and a determination to take it forward. New thinking of this kind is more essential than ever to get the best from the far too small number of operational platforms and weapons stocks to hand. I was pleased to note the positive references to the Armed Forces covenant. It deserves far more than government is so far prepared to state in statute.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the noble and gallant Lord. Many years ago, he and I worked quite closely together when he was Chief of the Air Staff and I was chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. The armed services in those days were a great deal larger than they are today.
The Government frequently boast of the help they have given to Ukraine and all they have done to mobilise support for Ukraine, and I congratulate them for everything they have achieved. That comes at a price, of course, and I should like the Minister to tell us what all our help has meant for the British armed services. How much of what we have given has been replaced? Is it true that stocks that we used to count in days are now down to hours? Is it true that if the supplies to our Armed Forces are not transformed in the very near future, we will not be able to sustain our support for Ukraine, nor maintain the present level of training for our troops? I do not expect the Minister to give me chapter and verse in reply, but I should like her to assure the House that the Government are taking urgent steps to re-equip our own Armed Forces to the level of preparedness that they had before the Ukraine war began.
We have no idea how the Ukraine war might develop. We do not know what diversionary or other tactics Russia might deploy. But just suppose that a threat arises that necessitates the deployment of British and other NATO troops to the Baltic states, to Finland or to Poland. Would our troops in those circumstances be in a state of readiness? Would they be credible as a deterrent force? I should like the Minister to give her view on that.
In the light of the present situation, with a land war in Europe and continuous tension in Asia, can it be right to stick with a target of 2% of GDP for the defence budget? While campaigning for the leadership of the Conservative Party last year, Grant Shapps talked in terms of 3%. I believe he was on the right lines then and I hope he will remain on the right lines now. NATO has a target of 2%, but we have committed ourselves to more than most NATO countries with our nuclear deterrent, our very expensive aircraft carriers and our continued involvement in the Far East, exemplified by AUKUS. If that is the league that we wish to play in, we must put up the money to fund it.
I know that Ministers are very busy people and do not have much time to read books. None the less, I would urge the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to read a slim volume entitled Guilty Men, which was written by Michael Foot and a number of other people and published in 1940. It excoriated the Ministers in the 1930s who, by failing to re-equip the Armed Forces when there was still time, left them in mortal danger in that year. God forbid that we should ever again face the sort of danger that we faced in 1940, but the skies are darkening, and we owe it to our men and women in uniform to ensure that they are properly equipped for the dangers they might face. That is the first duty of the Government.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I join noble Lords on both sides of the House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for obtaining this debate this morning and endorsing everything he said about the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, a group that is being asked to do more and more with less and less, as has already been indicated.
I joined the British Army as a regular soldier in 1960 when it was 258,000-strong, a figure admittedly swollen by the last National Service men, who had just a year to do. Compare that figure to the forecasted 73,000 outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. It is the smallest army since the days of Oliver Cromwell, and yet we are expecting fewer and fewer of those men and women to do more and more with less and less equipment, less and less salary.
I will talk about the three Ms: manpower, including the contribution made by servicewomen, morale and money. On manpower, I have indicated the figures of how small the British Army is becoming. I will compare those with the strength of the British Army and our Armed Forces that the incoming Conservative Government enjoyed back in 2010, using the figures provided by His Majesty’s Government in the UK regular Armed Forces continuous attitude survey results over that period. What a blow to morale has taken place over those 13 years. As reported in Her Majesty’s Government’s figures, in 2010, the last year of the outgoing Labour Government, satisfaction with service life in general was at 61%. Some 73% of commissioned officers expressed satisfaction with life in the Armed Forces at that time. Compare that with the latest government figures for 2023: only 52% of officers and 42% of other ranks expressed satisfaction with their conditions, pay and life overall in our Armed Forces.
It is an incredible thought to an ex-regular soldier like me that almost half the officers in the British Army are dissatisfied with their conditions and with what they are being asked to do. I say in all sincerity to both sides of the House that, given the task our Armed Forces presently face, the fact that their leaders are so depressed about future prospects ought to give us concern.
Back in 2007, I had an exchange in your Lordships’ House with Lord Tebbit. At that time, my noble friend Lord Browne was being attacked for holding down two jobs in the Blair Government. He was both Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Defence. Lord Tebbit said, in his forthright way, what an impact it was having on morale in the Armed Forces that the Secretary of State for Defence was, in effect, fulfilling a part-time role. I am surprised we have not heard anything from the Conservative Benches so far on what impact the appointment of the current Secretary of State for Defence has had on the morale of the Armed Forces over the past few days. A man who, under a false name, embarked on a get-rich-quick scheme is now doing his fifth Cabinet job in the course of a year. My former colleagues in the British Army certainly would not be throwing their caps in the air at the thought of such a person being in charge of our Armed Forces. I am amazed that, given the criticism levelled at my noble friend in 2007, not a word has been said about that appointment so far.
The third point I want to make in the short time available is about money. I suspect the Minister, who commands the respect of both sides of the House, will say that the Government have accepted fully the recommendation of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body this year, ignoring the fact that in two previous years, 2018 and 2019, the same Government rejected those figures. They accepted part of them, yet insisted that the country could not afford the pay increase recommended by an independent body. I wonder what impact such a decision had on morale in the Armed Forces generally. If the Minister and her colleagues were all in uniform, I would have them prosecuted under what was Section 69 of the Army Act, for conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soames of Fletching, on securing this debate and on his introduction to it. He may have watched recently, as I did, the film “Oppenheimer”. It reminded me of colleagues we have lost—Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Bramall, who, with all their military experience, were staunch advocates of holding the Government to account over their nuclear weapons policy as part of defence. So far in this debate, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, no mention has been made of our nuclear programme.
Last month, Aidan Liddle, the UK ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, gave a statement during the preparatory session for the 10th Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. He said:
“The threat of nuclear proliferation persists. We, as States Parties to the NPT, must work to reduce this threat by strengthening the non-proliferation architecture, combating programmes of concern and building trust between regional neighbours”.
So far so good. He gave an extensive commentary on Iran but failed to mention that Israel has a nuclear arsenal, and nor did he mention that India, Pakistan and North Korea have not signed up to the NPT. We are signing a trade agreement with India; we should remind it that signing the NPT is essential.
Currently, nuclear weapons states, including the UK, are engaged in a new modernisation and expansion of their nuclear programmes, in contravention of Article 6 of the NPT. Furthermore, the Trident programme should make all those concerned with our Armed Forces deeply worried; it certainly worries me. The choice of spend is increasingly stark. The MoD paper Defence’s Response to a More Contested and Volatile World talks of recapitalisation of the nuclear defence strategy, but there remains a trilemma: a choice between increasing the overall MoD budget at the expense of other departments, reducing the spend on conventional weapons and forces or reducing spending on the Trident programme.
That trilemma may have led the Government to conclude that they will welcome the return of US nuclear weapons to UK soil. The American airbase at Lakenheath has seen a lot of activity, which many expert commentators say foreshadows US nuclear weapons being based there. If so, we face the build-up of nuclear arms in Europe. Russia has already escalated matters by using Belarus to extend its nuclear base. These developments mean we will again be a moment away from the nuclear nightmare that hung over us throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
I know that to expect progress on disarmament at this time, given the situation with Russia, would be naive. However, there is still much that can be improved, so I conclude with some questions for the Minister. What would she regard as a successful outcome from the next NPT round? What aspects will the UK Government especially prioritise? Will Parliament be asked to approve the hosting of US nuclear weapons in the British Isles?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Soames of Fletching on giving us this welcome opportunity to debate defence. I declare my interest as honorary air commodore of 600 (City of London) Squadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force, and as an adviser to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. I agree with everything my noble friend said in his moving and inspiring speech.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, in lamenting the Government’s inadequate commitment to defence spending. I understand that it is now proposed that the Army be cut to 73,000, although it has been reported in the media that it has been put under pressure to accept further cuts to an even lower level of 70,000, most of them to be borne by the infantry to provide more resources for the artillery, which has been heavily used in Ukraine and whose stockpiles are therefore somewhat depleted.
After Putin’s second illegal invasion of Ukraine, my right honourable friend Boris Johnson was quick to respond. We can hold our heads high in the world as a result. The decisive and strong response that the Government took at the time was widely recognised and crucial in bringing on board the ambivalent United States and the divided and lukewarm EU, several of whose member states were very slow to apply sanctions against the Russian regime.
I worry that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has stepped back a little from the commitments his predecessors made to spend more on defence. His commitment to increase defence spending over the next two years by £5 billion was welcome, but his aspiration to reach a level of 2.5% “over time” was decidedly underwhelming. However, this increased spending is relatively insignificant compared with the £52 billion increase that Ben Wallace has spoken about. Besides, I understand that £3 billion of the increase, some 60%, will be deployed to meet the UK’s contribution to the AUKUS pact, a trilateral defence agreement with the United States and Australia. Could my noble friend the Minister tell your Lordships what her expectations are of the timeframe within which our defence spending will rise to a level of 2.5% or more?
I also welcome the growing interest of Japan in working ever more closely with AUKUS. There is a new alignment of four liberal democracies emerging, as Australia, Britain, Japan, and the United States increasingly align their security interests to contain and balance the growth of China’s influence and power. It is also highly relevant that we have joined forces with Japan and Italy to build the next-generation fighter jet, the Global Combat Air Programme, which brings together our Tempest project with Japan’s F-X project.
I want to say how sorry I am that General Sir Patrick Sanders has retired early from his position as Chief of the General Staff. As a former volunteer officer of the Royal Green Jackets myself, I am of course biased, but I know how highly regarded he was in all three services. I was impressed by his view that the Ukraine conflict has reminded us that military conflict is ultimately about holding land—and without enough troops on the ground, you cannot do that. Will the Minister confirm that the Government recognise that point and have taken it on board, as well as other lessons from the Ukraine conflict?
Lastly, based on my experience with my Reserve squadron, I also ask my noble friend for her thoughts on a question that is worrying the leadership of my squadron. How are both regular and Reserve forces in the future going to retain the crucial NCO cadre, who take 10 years to train, against a background where young people expect instant results and tend to change jobs and roles much more often?
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I join colleagues in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for securing this debate and for his powerful and insightful introduction. It was direct and to the point—but I think the House would expect nothing less from the noble Lord.
When I had the honour of serving as a Defence Minister, I was responsible for service families, their accommodation and well-being. One thing I soon learned was that, if our service families were happy, our service men and women were happy—and if they were happy, we could send our forces anywhere in the world in defence of our country’s interests. But I very much regret that that would be more challenging today, as the morale of our forces continues to decline.
I will focus my comments on the latest Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey, which reveals that satisfaction with service life has fallen for the second year in a row. In 2021, the level of service satisfaction was 50%, but since then it has fallen eight points to 42%. Satisfaction with basic pay has fallen considerably in the last two years: down to 31%, the lowest ever recorded. Furthermore, satisfaction with allowances has fallen 19 percentage points since 2021. Just 39% of personnel think the allowances are fair. Just as worrying is the satisfaction with the quality of maintenance and repair of service family accommodation, which has fallen markedly in the last year. Satisfaction with the overall standard of service family accommodation has fallen from 52% to 46%. That is bad news.
The survey is a very thorough piece of work and provides us with vital insights into the attitudes of our service men and women. That brings me to a key point. Throughout my professional and political life, I have held the view that the greatest asset of any organisation is not its IT system, working environment, kit or additional benefits. Its greatest asset is its people. That came home to me very strongly when I was a Welsh Office Minister. An official came in one day and said, “I have some bad news, Minister. One of our RAF fighters has crashed into the sea off the Pembrokeshire coast. The pilot has ejected and is safe”. Then he added, “£5 million plane lost; £10 million pilot saved”. Those figures are illustrative, not actual; I am afraid that age has prevented me from remembering the exact figures. But the point he was making, and that I want to make, is that we invested far more in the person than the kit, and that it was easy to replace the kit, but we could not easily replace the person.
I make that point because one of the most worrying concerns I have is that the proportion of personnel planning to leave the services has increased for the second year running. The survey suggests they are leaving for a variety of reasons, but I fear it may be because they do not feel valued. Some 24%—a quarter—of personnel surveyed are planning to leave the services.
The survey also reveals that our service men and women do not believe that we will do anything about it. Overall, 48%—almost half—of personnel surveyed say that we will not act on the findings. They believe we will do nothing about their concerns. We must change this, and we will do that only by taking their concerns seriously and putting right what they see as wrong.
There has been a steady erosion of morale of our Armed Forces for some time now, and for me that is the most urgent problem that needs to be addressed. Failing morale, poor service family accommodation and increasing numbers leaving the forces is a real crisis at the heart of the challenge facing Britain’s defence. Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey has said that Britain has to do more of what he termed the “moral component”. He said:
“It is not acceptable, but it’s also not viable, if your satisfaction ratings are less than 50% of those who are serving”.
I welcome his comments, but I stress that I am not seeking to make a party-political point here, because I believe that colleagues on the Conservative Benches and across the House will also be concerned about the failing morale of our Armed Forces. All of us in this House would welcome hearing from His Majesty’s Government how they plan to respond to the key points in this survey.
I hope the Minister, who is hugely respected in this House and beyond, and who went out of her way to a great extent to help a former constituent of mine with a problem, will, when she replies to this debate, give us some guidance on what the Government are going to do, so we can say to our servicemen and women of our Armed Forces, “We are listening and we will do something about your concerns”.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, Ben Wallace, in his recent resignation letter, said:
“The Ministry of Defence is back on the path to being once again world class with world class people”.
Well, certainly, some world-class people and units, but hardly world-class procurement or use of manpower. On procurement, the recent Defence Select Committee report in July was scathing:
“We have discovered a UK procurement system which is highly bureaucratic, overly stratified, far too ponderous, with an inconsistent approach to safety, very poor accountability and a culture which appears institutionally averse to individual responsibility. We agree with the previous conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee from November 2021 that our procurement system is indeed ‘broken’. We believe the system is now in need of major, comprehensive reform”.
Turning to manning levels, in a Written Answer to me in June, the noble Baroness disclosed that 28% of combined military and civilian personnel were civilian—in other words, 60,000. Indeed, over the last five years, that number has risen from 58,000, despite a reduction in service personnel, a reduction in bases and major advances in communication systems such as videoconferencing. It is difficult to think of any other similar large employer that has not reduced headcount during this period. Compared with our 28%, the figure in France is only 23%. So is it not time to bring in a very senior and experienced external team to look at our procurement processes and seemingly bloated civilian manning levels? I do not believe that the MoD can or will do the necessary itself. The Defence Select Committee looked at Israel, admittedly a more modern nation starting from scratch. It noted:
“The Israeli system, which places a premium on efficient use of manpower, by effective use of contractors, manages to achieve similar outcomes … but with far fewer people”.
Turning to resources and defence priorities, I expect virtually all participants in today’s debate to support increased defence spending given our very dangerous world, with so many flashpoints apart, of course, from the appalling conflict in Ukraine. But, in a nation that has lived above its means for years, all departments argue for more spend. Thus we must ruthlessly focus on defence priorities and, sadly and inevitably, employment considerations writ large. Would Gordon Brown have given approval for our new carriers were Scottish jobs not involved? Should we really be planning the next generation of manned fighter aircraft given the rapid growth of unmanned vehicles in the air and at sea? I suggest that we have been behind the curve in the development of UAVs, well behind the USA and Israel, probably also Turkey and maybe even Iran. Just look at drone usage in Ukraine. Are we building up our capability and stocks as fast as we should? Where to spend defence cash is never easy. Looking back, I do not criticise the decision to reduce our tank numbers. It was not an unreasonable assumption that a major European land war was very unlikely. Who foresaw a Russian invasion say five years ago?
On Ukraine, we have to stay the course however long it may be. We are hugely impressed and humbled by the spirit of the Ukrainian people and the bravery of their forces, and perhaps there should also be a word of sympathy for young Russians press-ganged into a war against their will. I hope that one day there will be some form of negotiated peace. If Ukraine is understandably opposed to ceding any territory in a negotiation, perhaps a stay on Ukraine’s NATO membership might be sensible for a limited period, if only as a sop to Russia.
Finally, I have three or four specific questions for the Minister. First, what percentage of our Armed Forces currently receive an annual dental check? Secondly, who will pay for the repairs to HMS “Prince of Wales”? If it is the MoD, why? Thirdly, what plans can she talk about to build up our reserves, given the embarrassing comparisons made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, a little earlier? Finally, can she give an indication of the number of F35s currently in service and the number on order?
Lord Richards of Herstmonceux (CB)
My Lords, the Government talk of the UK having military effect globally and of Britain being a global power, yet our Armed Forces have never been weaker or less credible. We have no discernible grand strategy on which to base our defence strategy, other than post-imperial pretensions drawn from a political slogan, “Global Britain”, a conceit our ailing economy cannot hope to fund.
The strategically confused integrated review was meant to bring order to our defence posture. Its failings were neatly summed up by Professor Paul Cornish of Exeter University, who called his essay on the subject Everything Everywhere All at Once. He emphasised that, given their size and capability shortcomings, the Armed Forces could not hope to do all the things being asked of them.
In his resignation letter, Mr Wallace implied that things were not as he hoped. He wrote:
“The Ministry of Defence is back on the path”—
I say again, “back on the path”—
“to being once again world class”.
He went on:
“I genuinely believe that over the next decade the world will get more insecure and more unstable”.
He is right.
Last year the MoD was given an additional £24 billion. Earlier this year it was allocated a further £5 billion over the next two years, followed by £2 billion per year over the subsequent three years—a total of an additional £11 billion. The House of Commons Library usefully informs us that, adjusted for inflation, this amounts in real terms to only an additional £1.1 billion. The nuclear enterprise AUKUS, together with the replenishment of stockpiles gifted to Ukraine, will consume all the additional money. Day-to-day spending is set to reduce by 6.1% or just over £2 billion over the four years of the current programme. The outcome will be a continuing decline in the size, effectiveness and morale of the Armed Forces.
I could talk of the tragedy of lives lost unnecessarily because of soldiers being sent to fight wars in insufficient numbers and with inadequate equipment. I could, I think, rightly bang the table and insist that, to avoid this, defence must get 2.5% of GDP now, but I am a realist. Given the huge pressures on the Exchequer, it is not going to happen—anyway, even 3% of our current GDP would be insufficient. No, the deduction is clear. It is a grand strategic imperative, not simply an economic one, to build a vigorous high-growth economy. This requirement must be placed ruthlessly at the heart of government policy. It is not just because this is the only way to afford the NHS or an ever-bigger welfare bill but for the sake of our security: 2% of the GDP of a booming economy will pay for the Armed Forces needed to protect our way of life, but 2% of a sluggish economy never will.
In the interim, it is vital that we cut our defence coat to our economic cloth. This country must stop deluding itself that it can have a global role. We are a medium-sized country with a faltering economy. The UK must focus ruthlessly on the Euro-Atlantic theatre, not state that this is our priority but then spread our efforts so thinly that we are strong nowhere. Our predecessors faced a similar moment in the 1960s. Denis Healey had the moral courage to devise a new strategy that saw the UK withdraw from east of Suez. He tailored the Armed Forces to their NATO obligations. With an open and inquiring mind, our new Defence Secretary, Mr Grant Shapps, has the opportunity and, I argue, the responsibility to be our generation’s Denis Healey. In so doing, the UK can become once again the second most important state and de facto European leader of the alliance, we can free up some American assets to allow the Americans better to confront the challenge of China on our collective behalf and, importantly, we will recover lost influence in Europe.
In sum, let our economy genuinely be at the heart of a much-needed post-Brexit grand strategy. The ends, ways and means of the associated defence strategy must be kept responsibly in balance throughout. This will mean focusing single-mindedly on NATO, where we will gain most strategically and have most tactical effect should deterrence fail, ensuring in the process, as the war in Ukraine signals daily, that mass as well as technology determines the size and shape of our Armed Forces.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Soames for securing this debate and for his very moving introduction. I rise as a recent graduate of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, where I have just spent a year with the Navy. It is perhaps a better perk of this House than the free copy of the New Statesman. I joined the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, and particularly the Navy, because I wanted to understand the importance of defence and the Armed Forces for Scotland. I do not need to tell my noble friend the Minister that Scottish skills, expertise and innovation make an enormous contribution to the UK’s defence industry, with massive benefits for our national security and economy.
His Majesty’s naval base on the Clyde has delivered the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent remarkably safely and securely for over 50 years. More than that, the base is one of the largest employers in Scotland. Scotland has a thriving defence and security industry. Every Royal Navy submarine in service since 1917 has been fitted with a periscope or optronics mast manufactured on the Clyde. The Dreadnought version continues this tradition through the defence contract awarded to Thales, in Glasgow, just the other day.
In noting the importance of the role of the Armed Forces in Scotland and the union benefits of our defence policy for Scotland, I also note, like other noble Lords, the importance of our military personnel. During my year with the Navy, it was very obvious to me—and as other noble Lords have said—that our people are undoubtedly our single most impressive asset, from the keenness and excitement of the raw recruits who I met to the knowledge and experience of our commanders. It cannot be right that, in today’s world, where we expect recruits to complete some of their learning online, our bases cannot deliver reliable wifi. Nor can it be right that you cannot be guaranteed a hot shower when you come off exercise because there is no hot water in your building. Frankly, it is a disgrace that there have been times when there has been no sea access at Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth. The recent Ofsted report pointed to a “lack of adequate support” from the MoD, to the extent that Ofsted felt that the captain and senior team in charge at the college could not be held responsible for
“lamentable failings in maintenance, renovation and refurbishment”.
I am afraid that we are letting our people down.
We must also value those who support our military personnel. While the Navy asks the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to do more and more, its terms and conditions are out of step with comparable civilian services and really should be looked at before it is faced with a recruitment crisis and operational capacity is affected.
As the very proud parent of a recently commissioned reservist Guards officer, I welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, because I have been astounded at the way that the military engages—or, frankly, does not engage—with the civilian employers of reservists. As the number of service personnel shrinks and the population at large lose personal, family connections to the military, it is even more important that our Armed Forces seek to engage co-operatively with the civilian world and that the Government and the MoD ensure that our people are properly supported and valued, given the challenges that we face.
I pay tremendous tribute to the role of the Armed Forces. It was an enormous privilege to be on the Navy course of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme last year—I commend it to all noble Lords who have not done it yet. As a proud Scot, I was delighted to see the contribution that Scotland makes. I believe that the United Kingdom is punching above its weight, which is a source of immense pride. However, I fear that, if we do not address some of these issues and put our money where our mouth is in valuing our people, we will not be able to punch above our weight for much longer.
Lord Walker of Aldringham (CB)
My Lords, I also join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for leading this debate so powerfully.
In a generation, the British soldier has fought across the Falkland Islands, delivering the combat power carried on his shoulders. He has steadfastly, and without favour, absorbed bullets, bombs, fire and venom in Northern Ireland for some 32 years. He has driven massed armour into the depths of a fortified enemy in a Middle Eastern desert, having calmly waited for it for 40 years on the north German plain. He has hunted terrorists in the Hindu Kush. He has kept his reputation in the Balkans, while others have lost theirs. He has snatched hostages from the swamps of Sierra Leone and the embassies of Kensington. He has fed refugees, slaughtered sheep, put out fires, guarded prisons, cleared domestic rubbish, driven tankers, built hospitals and fought floods.
That CV shows that our Armed Forces are required to support a wide range of national policies, from fighting a well-equipped army—such as that of Saddam Hussein—in high-intensity conflict, through counter insurgency and terrorism, to peace support operations and humanitarian relief. There is no reason to believe that these types of demands being placed on our Armed Forces will not continue. We cannot predict what the future will present us with but, as history demonstrates, it will certainly be unexpected.
Unfortunately, there is no one size fits all for equipping, manning and training an army for such a wide span of commitments. Our Army has been one optimised for the most difficult and complex form of warfare—we call it war-fighting. By this, I mean that it has been structured and trained to fight a war, equipped with the firepower, mobility and protection that is needed on the high-intensity battlefield and continually seeking the best available technology to ensure that it can orchestrate all these measures and exploit them to best effect, and having the resilience to provide for sustained losses.
War-fighting has been our Army’s engine; other operations are about gear selection. That means tanks, artillery pieces, armoured personnel carriers and attack helicopters, last used for real 10 years ago when we fought Saddam Hussein and very nearly used against the Serbs in Kosovo. There is no clearer demonstration of this potential need than the war between Russia and Ukraine. It is worth remembering that there remain some 80,000 operational tanks in the world, of which we have fewer than 160.
I have three final points. First, our seat at the highest political and military tables and the influence that we may wish to bring to bear on world events are absolutely predicated on our credibility as a nation that has serious, balanced, expeditionary war-fighting forces. Our capabilities, as we have heard, have already been called into question by many commentators and American generals. It will be no good preparing for the war that we want to fight; we should prepare for the war that we have to fight.
Secondly, the price of failure in a peace support operation in some far-flung place, as we have seen, will be painful but probably containable. The price of failure in something such as the Gulf War would most likely be catastrophic for the nation. This price would certainly be out of all proportion to the price of proper preparation beforehand.
Thirdly, in the United Kingdom , political will continues to be manifest in a policy-driven defence review—integrated, strategic or whatever—with a deliberate, judgment-based and scientific estimate of the level and range of military capability required to meet the extant will. The weakness of our Armed Forces lies not in their design but in the level of resources applied to them, as we have heard. Political will, force design and resource levels are simply not aligned. Defence bureaucracy is psychologically inclined to short-term pragmatism and does not invest sufficient energy in competing for the necessary resources. It is culturally adept at blurring the distinction between affordability and military efficacy.
We must establish a pure and simple method of gaining real visibility of this predicament and be prepared to expose the true military consequences of a failure to invest properly in our Armed Forces in a politically effective way. The existing processes, attitudes and schedules are not optimised to do this. Instead, they are geared to managing decline. We see this day by day and, if it continues, it will take a great deal of resources, time and money to regenerate our forces to the right level.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord. The week before last, I was in India speaking at the B20 in Delhi. Our Prime Minister leaves today for the G20 in Delhi. I hope we will soon have a free trade agreement signed between the UK and India.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for leading this important debate, which is extremely timely. The Government’s Defence’s Response to a More Contested and Volatile World, published in July this year, says very clearly, right upfront in the ministerial foreword, that:
“We are proud of the role the UK is playing in supporting Ukraine in this fight. They are not only defending the international rules-based system on our behalf, but in many ways they are proving the way for warfare in the 2020s – whole of nation, internationally partnered, innovative, digitised and operating with tempo, precision and range. In turn, we are providing Ukraine with equipment, training and political support. We have galvanised European and international, governmental and industrial partners to do likewise. We are campaigning globally”.
Defence’s purpose is to protect the nation, help it to prosper, shape the international environment, deter, defend and compete across all domains, address vulnerability of civilians and generate strategic advantage. Yet it is our minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent which is assigned to the defence of NATO that works every single hour of every day to guarantee our security and that of our NATO allies.
However, the total number of active duty personnel is under 150,000, which is smaller than the US Marine Corps. Many would argue that the weakness of the Government’s Command Paper is that it reverses ends and means. Change is desperately needed, given the challenges from Russia and China, and our budget is far too small. Our Royal Navy has fewer than 30,000 and the Army is getting down to 72,000. The Royal Air Force—I am proud to be an honorary group captain in 601 Squadron—is fewer than 30,000. The total is just 133,000.
There is a delay with the F35 Lightning II fighter jets—there should be 48 of them. Can the Minister tell us when we will reach that number? We will now have fewer than 150 tanks. What is great news is that we are embarking on joint exercises. The Royal Air Force joined five other nations in the UK’s biggest aerial exercise, with 70 aircraft flown by six nations in March this year. I was delighted that it was called Exercise Cobra Warrior.
In 2019—I am like a stuck record—in the debate on the 70th anniversary of NATO I called for our expenditure to go up to 3%. I shall continue being a stuck record. AUKUS has been a superb security pact between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom for the Indo-Pacific region. Sir Stephen Lovegrove has said that the submarine element of the partnership was
“perhaps the most significant capability collaboration anywhere in the world in the past six decades”.
Does the Minister not think that the UK should join the Quad—the USA, Japan, Australia and India? That would be a wonderful global partnership.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, before leaving, said that Ukraine has, tragically, become a “battle lab” and that lessons learned would inform the future of Britain’s Armed Forces—in particular, drone defence and artillery. He pointed out that, at the end of the Second World War, 35% of the Army was artillery and that it is now only 8%. Are we learning those lessons?
In conclusion, £45.9 billion spending on defence is not enough. Yes, we may be spending the minimum 2% NATO requirement but, actually, given all the threats that there are in the world, the alliances are crucial, and NATO is crucial. Let us not go further than the Royal Gallery and the battle of Waterloo, and that wonderful painting. Without Marshal Blücher arriving, the Duke of Wellington would not have won the Battle of Waterloo. We need the alliances, we respect NATO and we are proud to be part of NATO.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, mentioned that the UK was a medium-sized economy. Much as I respect him, I put it to your Lordships that we are not a superpower. There are only two superpowers: the United States and China; and one more emerging, India, which I predict by 2060 will be the largest economy in the world. But we are still the sixth-largest economy in the world and at the top table of the world, whether it is the G7 or the G20. We are the second-largest power in NATO. Most importantly, we have the strongest elements of soft power, whether it is the Royal Family, our Premier League football, the BBC or our universities. But soft power without hard power is absolutely useless. We need to support and invest in our Armed Forces and enforce that precious covenant between the public and the Armed Forces and we must never take them for granted. We must spend a minimum of 3% of GDP right now.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I too begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for initiating this debate. It is a pleasure to have him among us, and we are very lucky that he has come from the other place to join us. I am sure that his contribution will be widely appreciated over the years to come.
Two themes have come through very clearly: that we are not spending enough and that the Army and the military forces, including the Navy, are just not big enough for what we are trying to do. Those points have been made by several people. I want to concentrate on what I call the need for realism, because our attitude in defence is often pretty unreal. On its own, the UK cannot really do very much at all; we have to work in an alliance and in alliances with other like-minded countries. That is point one.
The second point is that we are a most important part of NATO, but we are not important enough to get the General Secretaryship, it seems. We have to realise that, even within NATO, we are beginning to be overshadowed by Germany. Within NATO, we need to concentrate more on interoperability. I was the first leader of the European Parliament delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in around 1989. At that time, we were talking about the need for interoperability. The fact of the matter was that you could not send a tank through Denmark without the permission of the Danish parliament—and the fact of the matter is that interoperability is still a challenge for NATO and one that we need to look at.
The other challenge is that we need to be more realistic about Article 5. We are fond of saying, “Oh, it’s an Article 5 commitment”, but all that Article 5 says is that an attack on one is an attack on all. It does not say what we should do if Russia decided to intervene in Estonia. It does not give Lisbon any guidance as to what it should do, apart from saying, “Oh dear, Russia has intervened in Estonia. What shall we do?” As far as I can tell, we are not obliged under Article 5 to do anything at all, other than to note that an attack is an attack on us all. That needs looking at.
The point has been made on more than one occasion that the United States is yet again blowing hot and cold on its commitment in Europe. This has been the pattern for many years now. We must bear in mind that, in the end, Europe will have to defend itself. We cannot outsource defence for ever. In fact, we cannot outsource it for very much longer.
We hear lots of strong words about Ukraine, but we also need some realism. One day the fighting will stop—we do not know when, but it will. When it stops, Russia will still be in the same place geographically, it will be the same size and it will present the same challenges, and we have to come to terms with those challenges. We go on about Russian money rebuilding Ukraine, but the truth of the matter is that it is not going to happen. It has never happened—one country has never rebuilt another. It might be said that we rebuilt parts of Germany after the Second World War, but Germany did not rebuild anyone outside its borders for many years until it was rich again. We have got to be realistic: when the fighting stops, Ukraine will need a lot of help from the countries of the West that are now behind it.
As Ben Wallace said, the world is now more unstable and insecure, but I am not sure that that is not a predictable thing. What I would say is that we need to be tolerant and we need to look at building a new Helsinki and coming to terms with the reality of being a small but important nation contributing to the defence of our common home.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on securing this debate and on so excellently setting the scene in his introductory remarks. I also declare my interest as an honorary captain in the Royal Naval Reserve.
I very much associate myself with most of what has been said by the other speakers, especially on the level of defence spending, the need for urgent action and the critical importance of reserves. I support the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, on the critical importance of a strong and growing economy.
Previous speakers have done an excellent job of highlighting the important contribution and needs of the armed services; I might add their value and importance in diplomacy. The Joint Expeditionary Force was an outstanding success, which played a part in the decision of Sweden and Finland to join NATO—a major development. Britain played a significant role here and in the AUKUS agreement with Australia and the US. Both were of great diplomatic value, demonstrating an outward-looking United Kingdom at a time when we had left the EU.
Our actions and clear thinking in support of Ukraine have gained us considerable admiration among close friends and others who are not so committed. This is Britain in an outward-facing role. Britain’s support for open seas and the presence of the Royal Navy are important not only for Britain as a trading and maritime nation but for all trading nations.
More can be said about the contribution of the services to our national well-being beyond defence. We have not said a lot about their contribution to humanitarian aid in times of weather or health emergencies. Their skills and training are of benefit to wider society, as is their innovation in science and technology. I believe that more can be done to bring across expertise and knowledge gained in the military into civilian life and the wider economy.
We have heard about procurement mistakes, but mention has not been made of the export benefit that Britain gains from every delivered F35 jet, where 15% of equipment value accrues to the United Kingdom. The AUKUS project will be based on the British next-generation submarine. I also draw attention to the sale of the design of the Type 26 frigate being built in Australia and Canada, as well as the Type 32 being built in Poland.
In concluding, I want to make the case for a whole-of-society approach to defence and the support of our armed services. When I was coming up to my year as Lord Mayor of London, one of my predecessors, the late Sir Roger Gifford, told a reservist audience that defence is everyone’s business. Of course he was right, and I have never forgotten his words. As we have heard, not all of society is properly conscious of our Armed Forces and their needs. Most of us here had parents who were in the war, and people had uncles, neighbours and so on who were in the services, so they were connected to the services and knew a great deal about them. This is not the case now, with our smaller services. What steps can the Government take to increase public understanding of the role and importance of the armed services?
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Soames for securing this most timely debate, deploying his immense experience and knowledge of defence matters. The refreshed integrated review and the 2023 defence Command Paper represent a concerted effort to target Britain’s foreign policy where it is most able to have impact. The documents are forthright in acknowledging the changing nature of the rules-based international system and the myriad threats to it, but we need to step up British efforts to defend this system. However, it would have been inconceivable to have predicted the international environment as it exists today.
I will say just a few words about Ukraine, a country I have visited many times, including Crimea, in my capacity as the former chairman of the British Ukrainian Society. We are aware of the millions of Ukrainians who have sought refuge elsewhere, but let us remind ourselves of the huge internal displacement. Every week I get emails from Ukraine and, despite the economic situation, the splitting up of families and the atrocious Russian drone attacks, Ukrainians never, ever complain. Their stoicism and resilience are astonishing and very humbling for us all. The decision to begin the training associated with Operation Orbital in 2015 and what followed paid dividends, and the gratitude of Ukraine towards us is enormous. The leadership shown by this country, and the role of Ben Wallace, are universally acknowledged there.
President Putin has talked and written about Ukrainians and Russians being effectively one people and one country; this is absolutely not the view of Ukrainians. He argued that he invaded Ukraine because of a threat by NATO via Ukraine. Now, despite all the Russian threats, Sweden and Finland have abandoned their former neutrality; despite a hesitant initial response from some NATO countries, 22 of NATO’s 31 members have increased defence spending; imports of Russian fossil fuels have been dramatically curtailed; and new defence and foreign policy structures have led to much more strategic convergence. But Putin’s major miscalculation has been on the focus and generosity of the United States. It is not the first time that this country thousands of miles away has ridden to the rescue, and thank heavens this has happened again. Far from abandoning Europe, it would have been impossible without the US for Ukraine to have fought back so effectively. Our relationship with the United States today, in intelligence, security and defence matters, is hugely appreciated in Kyiv and must be retained.
Russia’s grotesque war of aggression against Ukraine shows how developments in the Euro-Atlantic area can affect countries in the Indo-Pacific, which the 2021 integrated review tilt has now developed further. As Penny Wong, Australia’s Foreign Minister, said at King’s College in London earlier this year:
“In our modern, tightly-woven world, what happens in Europe reverberates in the Indo-Pacific. And what happens in the Indo-Pacific reverberates in Europe. No region—indeed, no country—is an island”.
Our relationship with Australia has developed exponentially. Its defence strategic review of April this year is particularly focused on naval modernisation and long-range maritime strike forces, reflecting the aggressive activities of China in the region. The initial AUKUS partnership links us to Australia and the United States, reflecting a common analysis of the region’s challenges but also offering greater longevity to our own shipbuilding industries. This new partnership reflects our shared values. We can be pleased that Australia is building important relationships with countries such as India, Indonesia and the Philippines. Just as European countries have re-established common defence objectives—for example, the UK, Japan and Italy’s global combat air programme—so we see the same in Japan and Korea.
However the Ukraine war ends, Russia is likely to retain its sea and air capabilities essentially intact. The United Kingdom is one of its least favourite countries, and we remind ourselves that China does not share our view of international maritime law. Defence spending has at times in the past been seen as lacking electoral appeal. The last few years have been a dramatic wake-up call, to which we now absolutely have to respond.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I think it splendid that my noble friend Lord Soames managed to get this debate. It is very interesting that three to four years ago I tried to get a major debate in this House, for one or two days, about defence. It is something that could be possible, with the way we work here, but has never happened. I discovered from chatting with people in the other House that there is no method there whereby you can call for a debate in that format; there never has been, going right the way back through history. Some noble Lords will know much more about that than I did.
I feel very strongly about national service, possibly because I did it, in the Royal Air Force in Egypt in 1973. We had 87,000 of the finest of our troops based there in every conceivable form, but things have changed. I am a great believer in bringing back some form of national service. The reservist system in this country, in which I have been involved since 1991, is different; it is not a form of service in which you have full training. There is not the same number as we talked about before who have the time, in this modern day and age, to bring what we need to defend the country. But increasingly we need the brain power of those who can deal with hacking and areas of that nature, which can be the most dangerous things that affect the armed services, not just banks or others.
Supposing Ukraine had not happened, would we be having this debate? Would there be any talk at all about what to do about the armed services? A lot of the ideas we are thinking about are important because it is a dangerous world, but we also have the attitude that in no way whatever does anybody who is part of NATO want to put a single boot into the campaign in Ukraine. I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Risby’s view: the United States is our finest ally. It picks up nearly 82% of the cost of NATO, which people forget. From the point of view of down under, we have to think about our relationships with all our Commonwealth countries; they are very important. In my company, where my predecessors served in the Battle of Trafalgar, we lost 186 ships and crews at sea in the last two wars. The people in that area are part of us. Is the idea that we should not go beyond the Atlantic area? After all, we have been protected for 50 or 60 years by our submarines, if you can remember what they do, which is a terrific background.
The private sector is a hugely important part of whatever we do for the defence of the realm, because it produces most of what we do in every way possible. But we must create wealth; if you do not have wealth, you do not have the money to spend. In the discussion we had on the last review, in which the noble Baroness also took part, we agreed that it was troubling that we have a debate such as this one, and talk about what must be done, and nothing happens. It takes ages for anybody to get anything done and report back on what is really happening, and I suggest that this has not really finished today.
Finally, on the money side, I believe in 5% and more because, with inflation, if we do not have at least 5% we are really going to be in a mess.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for introducing this debate so brilliantly and, as so often, demonstrating how much we have in common across all parts of your Lordships’ House when we speak on defence. So often from this Bench, I find that if there is a Statement and I am following the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I echo what he has said. Most of the time, we stand up and pay tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, thanks us for doing so and does likewise.
Today, I think there is almost unanimity across the House, but, for once, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, may not feel it is quite such a comfortable place to be. This is precisely because, across the House, while paying tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces, there is a common theme where in many ways we are all echoing the outgoing—or rather, outgone—Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, in suggesting that there has been a hollowing out of His Majesty’s Armed Forces. At the present time, the last thing that this country can afford to do is to hollow out our Armed Forces, because we are at a time of international turbulence. We have had a new integrated review refresh, and this defence Command Paper, precisely because the threats that were perceived in 2021 have been realised, and things have gone much further in Ukraine.
The danger for the Liberal Democrats, or indeed for any of the Front Benches, in winding up in a debate like this, is that by the time we get to the winding speeches, everything has been said but perhaps not everybody has said it. But on this occasion there are a couple of questions that I would like to raise that I do not think have been touched on in other speeches. I will then come back to the themes of defence spending, Armed Forces morale and the role of the Armed Forces in this country.
Looking at the opening ministerial words of the defence Command Paper of this year, I think there is very little with which we would disagree in what Ben Wallace and James Heappey said. They talked about Russia, but they also mentioned China, as the noble Lord, Lord Soames, did in his opening remarks. I wonder whether the Minister could tell the House a little bit more about what His Majesty’s Government think in terms of relations with China and defence threats, in particular in light of the suggestions over the weekend that the MoD had been hacked? Could the Minister reassure the House about cybersecurity, which is, I think, a topic that has not really been explored today but is worth thinking about? If our own MoD is not secure, what message is that sending? Something about cybersecurity would be very welcome.
Beyond that, we heard the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, suggest towards the end that “defence is everybody’s business”. The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, pointed out a problem of recent years: that, as the size of the Armed Forces has declined, fewer members of our society are used to having family members having experience of the Armed Forces. That means that it is very difficult to make the case for funding for the Armed Forces or for defence; it does not necessarily feature in debates. If you are out on a doorstep, you are unlikely to have people saying, “Please put more money into the Armed Forces”. You hear it sometimes, but if you are a campaigning politician running for office in the other place or for a local council, it is usually about the NHS or, on a local level, potholes, rather more than military capabilities. Yet, if we do not get those military capabilities right, there is nothing else that the Government can and should be doing.
So, from these Benches, I echo the requests for His Majesty’s Government to pay proper attention to the MoD budget. It is a great loss to the Government and to the country that Ben Wallace, with his persistent concerns and demands about funding the Armed Forces and defence, has left office. Could the Minister enlighten the House on whether she believes that the new Secretary of State really does believe in 3% being spent on defence, because that would seem to be an important commitment?
Could she also say whether the Government would agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, and his important comments about the size of the economy? On these Benches, while we are committed to defence expenditure, we also believe that it is the size of the economy that matters, because 2% or 3% of a larger economy is rather more important. So what are His Majesty’s Government thinking about in that regard?
We heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Craig of Radley, and the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Snape, among others, about the Continuous Attitude Survey. Our Armed Forces are vital to this country; we owe them not just a debt of gratitude but quality of accommodation. As we heard from many noble Lords, we need to ensure that the Armed Forces have appropriate accommodation and that their families are also looked after, because that is a vital part of keeping morale and ensuring retention. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that morale and retention are improved?
On the question my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire raised and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, discussed at some length, what are His Majesty’s Government doing about Reserves? As well as a policy of increasing the number of Reserves, should we not think much more about an interplay between the regulars and the Reserves? That seems to be an area where we could ensure that the £10 million fighter pilot is not lost when he or she leaves the RAF. So is there is some flexibility and creativity in government thinking on those matters?
Finally, I was not expecting to speak about the nuclear deterrent, because it is a decision that has been made in terms of Trident replacement, but the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and my noble friend Lady Miller both pointed out that there is question about the size of stockpiles. In the integrated review, His Majesty’s Government talked about increasing the number of nuclear warheads. Have they had a chance to rethink that? The deterrent only needs to be a minimal deterrent; increasing the number of warheads does not necessarily seem to be the most effective way of using scarce resources. Would it not be better for us to think not about increasing the number of nuclear weapons but about ensuring that we have credibility in conventional weapons, so that we can keep our place and seat at the table, leading in NATO?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and have it the other way round from what we normally do—and what a privilege it is to take part in this debate.
It would be remiss of me not to start by conveying again to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the appreciation that His Majesty’s Opposition have for the work that Ben Wallace did as Defence Secretary. It has been acclaimed by many across the Chamber, and we recognise him as someone who has done an excellent job. In other areas of politics, we sometimes criticise each other unnecessarily, but, on defence, where credit is due it should be given, and it is in the interests of our country that we have a Defence Secretary who does the job well. I hope that the Minister will pass that on.
In the same way, I hope that the new Defence Secretary does well in his post—notwithstanding the criticisms that can be made about the number of posts he has had. It is in all our interests to have a UK Defence Secretary who does a good job, and I hope that that works out for him, notwithstanding the other criticisms and challenges we may make.
What a brilliant speech it was from the noble Lord, Lord Soames, to start the debate. Sometimes in this House, people are moved by speeches that are made. We were moved today, and in a way that reminded us of the importance of what he was talking about in the heartfelt and sincere tribute he paid to our Armed Forces. I hope that our Armed Forces hear that and recognise the sincerity with which it was made. It informed our debate and set the tone, and it gave us all the opportunity to lay out what we think.
I think it is important to remind the House of some of the fundamentals of His Majesty’s Opposition’s defence policy. We fully support the Government’s efforts in Ukraine and the need to tackle the Russian threat. The unity of purpose across this Chamber and across NATO has been really significant in standing with the Ukrainian people to resist Russian aggression. There must never be a scintilla of difference between us in that unity of purpose. Putin sorely underestimated the unity of NATO in standing up against Russian aggression and our resilience to be in it not just for the short term. As the former Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister and others have said, we will do whatever it takes to deliver that objective.
I remind noble Lords of the importance we give to NATO and our support for AUKUS and our other alliances. As the noble Lord, Lord Soames, reminded us, we are proud of our Armed Forces and want, hope and expect them to be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out the importance of our reserves, their families and veterans—I declare an interest as my son-in-law is an active reservist who has recently been on operations with His Majesty’s Armed Forces in eastern Europe. His Majesty’s Opposition also fully support the renewal of the independent nuclear deterrent.
This House is sometimes criticised, and people may have a view of what reform should or should not happen, but this debate has shown the quality of contributions and the experience brought to bear by many who have served in and led the Armed Forces. The experience of former Secretaries of State, former Ministers and others in this Chamber who still hold positions is really important. I look forward to seeing how the Minister will try to distil how some of that information may inform government policy. It would be a shame for us to have a debate and just walk away from it saying: “That was very interesting, there were brilliant speeches”. There have been informed speeches that seek to challenge the Government in a legitimate and positive way and ask: “Have the Government got this right? Is the way they are looking at the future right?”
The Government face numerous challenges and none of us wants them not to succeed, but are they right about the size of the Army? Can we really deliver what we want with the size of the Army we have? These are legitimate questions posed by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton, Lord Richards and Lord Walker, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and many others. My noble friends Lord West and Lord Browne, a former Defence Secretary, asked this not because they want the Government to fail but because, with all its various commitments, is that really the size of the Army we want today? Have we really got enough ships? Have we got the numbers of fighters we want, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out from his own experience? What about stockpiles and industrial strategy?
It is not only about the numbers but about recruitment and retention in our Armed Forces. Recently, I went to HMS “Raleigh” in the south-west—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, may have been on that visit. They could not recruit young people even with the opportunity to gain skills. It is so dispiriting. That is a real problem for us as a country and for our Armed Forces. It is not necessarily about size, but not being able to recruit young people is something that we need to look at.
I have one particular point and then a general comment. A number of noble Lords mentioned resources. There will be debate about whether you keep it at 2% of a growing economy or 2.5%, or leave it where it is, or whatever. I think the British public have been remarkable in the strength of support they have given to us for what has happened in Ukraine. It has cost them in their energy bills and in many other areas, but they have stood steadfast with the people of Ukraine because they understand what is at stake. They understand what needs to be done to win that battle, and that is really important. We cannot take that public support and confidence in what we do for granted.
Many of us here are well informed. We understand what is going on and understand the threats, and we believe that this should happen. However, if we argue for more resources to deal with it, that must be set against some of the other demands that will be made of the public budget and public resource. All of us need to understand and recognise that. The British people need to be told the truth about what it will cost to defend democracy, freedom and human rights. If they wish to do that, as I hope and believe they will, we need to argue it. That is one area that all of us should perhaps pay more attention to.
I have one other point to raise in my final minute. This country should be proud of the role it plays throughout the world. That is not in terms of being a military superpower, sending aircraft carriers here, there and everywhere all over the world. I believe that the United Kingdom, with its aircraft carriers, ships and planes, through its alliances and as a permanent member of the UN, its membership of NATO and AUKUS, and the other things it can do, alongside its soft power and its defence attachés, can be a power for good in the world, standing up and operating with its allies. A battle and struggle are coming in a contested world between democracy and autocracy. This country has always been at the forefront of the fight for human rights, freedom and democracy, and it should once again be at the forefront of that. I hope that whoever is in government will take that forward, and I am sure they will.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, if I may say, perhaps unusually, for a very fine debate, that was a very fine closing speech. We have had an enlivening and, perhaps more importantly, enlightening debate. As I have come to expect from a House that is abundant with former Ministers and former heads of our Armed Forces, there have been many fascinating points of illumination and, predictably, points of challenge. I will endeavour to respond to these in turn shortly.
First, however, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Soames on an impressive feat of foresight: namely—assuming his Mystic Meg demeanour—by arranging for this debate to coincide with some prominent arrivals and departures at the MoD. Many of your Lordships, led by my noble friend Lord Soames, have already paid generous homage to Ben Wallace. I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks about Ben as well as his kind remarks about my colleague James Heappey and me.
I will start by paying my own tribute to Ben Wallace. He and I first met when as rookie MSPs we stumbled across the threshold of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I found him then to be a decent, principled, compassionate man, and my opinion remains the same today. He has been a steadfast colleague for the past four years, and he now bears the accolade of being the longest-serving Conservative Defence Secretary since my noble friend’s grandfather Winston Churchill. As Secretary of State, Ben oversaw many things: the evacuations of Kabul and Sudan, the Armed Forces’ response to Covid and the majestic “Queen Elizabeth” leaving these shores for a successful seven-month deployment to the Indo-Pacific. At the same time, his leadership gave us the Global Combat Air Programme, AUKUS—to which some of your Lordships referred—a new shipbuilding tsar and the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy. These legacies will all secure thousands of British jobs, not least for generations of young people. Also, as many of your Lordships acknowledged, there has been the immense contribution to Ukraine. As the Prime Minister said in his generous tribute, Ben
“saw, before others did, what Vladimir Putin’s true intentions in Ukraine were”.
It is worth pausing briefly to reflect on the scale of the assistance his not just clear-sighted but far-sighted response generated. In the past 18 months, we have gifted a huge amount of equipment to Ukraine. We have sent logistics vehicles, search and rescue helicopters, helmets and metal detectors, not to mention all the missiles, armoury and munitions that it needs in its struggle. We have led the international response, together with Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Australia. We have trained more than 23,000 Ukrainians.
I particularly thank the Lord, Lord Coaker, for his warm recognition of that contribution by Ben Wallace and his affirmed alignment with the United Kingdom Government’s approach. As Putin has continued his savage assault, the UK's support has never wavered, and that is testament to Ben Wallace’s leadership. Our new Secretary of State for Defence has been absolutely clear that this steadfast support for Ukraine will continue for as long as it takes.
But Ben Wallace did something else: he oversaw the most radical review of defence policy since the end of the Cold War. In the process—I have seen this at first hand—he turned the MoD into a modern, proactive, forward-thinking and threat-led organisation. Next year, we will spend more than £50 billion on defence for the first time in our history, and this Government have committed—it is a laudable commitment, as noble Lords have noted—to increasing spending yet further over the longer term to 2.5% of GDP as we improve the fiscal position and grow our economy.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his helpful recognition of the economic and financial realities that confront the Government. My noble friend Lord Balfe reiterated them, and they were powerfully and eloquently affirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. We unfortunately do not live in a perfect world. If we did, the defence budget would be infinite and we would never cease to have things to spend money on, but in the real world things are very different. The Government have put their money where their mouth is, and the record is there. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, that there is a healthy equipment budget for the Army, and, yes, we shall keep the number of CR3s under review.
The conclusions in the original Defence Command Paper remain right. Russia was and is the greatest threat to European security; the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was quite correct to refer to that. China’s rapid military modernisation and growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific and beyond pose an increasing challenge to us all. But Ben Wallace was clear that, as the threat moved from greater competition to active contests and accelerated volatility, defence must move with it. That is why we published the refreshed Defence Command Paper this July. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I would turn to that source more readily than to any other publication. It is certainly not an exercise in deception. My noble friend Lord Risby acknowledged the significance of that Command Paper refresh.
Not even the greatest champions of that paper, and I am one of them, would hail it as a sparkling work of engaging prose with dazzling announcements, but that is not its purpose. Instead, it is grounded, sensible and sober. In drawing on the experience of its ministerial team to look under the hood and fine-tune the engine, we are endeavouring to make the whole machine run better. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, wisely urged us to deal with the real world, and that is what this Command Paper refresh seeks to do. A number of themes from the paper have a direct bearing on this debate, so let me just touch on some of the most salient.
First, the paper rightly acknowledged the contribution of our people. I want to spend a little time on that, because it was an aspect raised by many of your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Soames said that they are a unique asset and that that does not happen by accident, and I entirely agree. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said that nothing else is anything without our people, and I absolutely agree with that, too. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, who has sadly had to withdraw because he is unwell. He mentioned women; women are a very important component of our Armed Forces.
I thank noble Lords for the warmth of their remarks about our people. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, referred to the continuous attitude survey and what it indicated about morale. That was echoed by my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, who spoke particularly of accommodation. I reassure both noble Lords that we take these issues very seriously. There is an accommodation programme under way for new investment and reinvestment. We are seeing that delivering improvement, but my noble friend Lady Fraser is quite right. The circumstances that she described are unacceptable, and we are doing everything in our power to deliver improvement.
I assure my noble friend Lord Lancaster, for whom I have the greatest respect and whom I thank for his tremendous contribution on our reservists, that I see them as a vital component of our personnel and, in the case of the Army, with a particular relevance to future soldiers. I say to him and to others who are concerned about the future of our personnel that I believe that the Haythornthwaite review offers a very sensible and encouraging way forward, because it is building on resilience and flexibility. That is to help the work environment of the people we have and to make a more attractive career offer to those whom we need to recruit. My noble friend Lord Trenchard asked whether we will have 73,000 regulars. The answer is yes. We will have a whole force of more than 100,000 personnel in the Army—73,000 regulars and 30,100 reserves. I make clear that the Chief of the General Staff has not retired. He remains a much-valued colleague.
The Command Paper acknowledged all that I have been talking about, because our men and women are our greatest capability, the jewel in our defence crown. As I have indicated, our reforms give them greater career flexibility and, I hope, a more compelling and competitive incentive package.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, gave a most captivating narrative of just what our personnel do and the diversity of activity that we ask of them. I felt that it was a little male-orientated, with the greatest respect, and observe that our women play a singularly important role in these endeavours as well.
The second thing that the DCP refresh does is strengthen our scientific and technological base. We are world leaders in specific areas, and DSTL is revered globally. However, to continue outmatching our adversaries we need to stay ahead of the curve, leading the way not just in digital in data but in emerging scientific fields such as artificial intelligence and quantum robotics. We must also pull R&D breakthroughs into the front line. Quite often, sourcing a £100 solution may stop 100,000 threats in their tracks. That is the world that we live in.
The paper also sets up a more sustainable partnership and relationship with industry. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltire, rightly raised how we approach procurement. He is correct that it is folly to hold out for the 100%-perfect solution if the acceptable and workable 80% solution is there on the shelf. We are very much aware of that, and that is part of the new approach. However, because of the exponential pace of technological advance, we do not have time to wait. We need to upgrade kit rapidly, we need to respond to the relentless rhythms of the battlefield, and we need to ditch acquisition programmes that drag on for decades. We are now setting maximum delivery periods of five years for hardware and three years for digital programmes, which I am sure your Lordships will find refreshing. For the avoidance of doubt, our nuclear programme is not in contravention of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We support that treaty.
We are adopting a global campaigning approach where it is the character of the adversary and their threat, not the geographic focus, that will drive our enduring campaigns. We have established a global response force. Ready, integrated and lethal, it will better cohere forces from across land, sea and air, space and cyber to get in first in response to unpredictable events around the world. All these domains are critical, but it is the aggregate cohesion of them that packs the punch. I reassure noble Lords who are concerned about individual domains and services that we will keep a close eye on these separate components.
The Command Paper also recognises that, in an interconnected world, we are unlikely to act alone. Partnerships are critical to our security and prosperity. Many of your Lordships raised this. In future, we will be allied by design and national by exception. That is not some meaningless platitude. Frankly, it is sound pragmatism. Our support for NATO will remain ironclad, but we will continue to prioritise our core relationships. Deepening relationships with like-minded partners is extremely important. We have invested in our global defence network. We are improving its core communications and co-ordinating our defence attachés, who are a vital component of what we do globally within our intelligence functions. All of this keeps us safe and helps us contribute to global stability, but, very importantly, as my noble friend Lady Fraser observed, it brings benefit to the whole of the UK in myriad ways.
I am conscious of time, so I will deal with some of the particular points that have been raised. I do not promise to get through them all—I have a kind of Encyclopaedia Britannica here—but I will undertake to write if I cannot cover all the points I need to refer to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, raised the important issue of China and I am very grateful to her for doing that because, to my surprise, it did not feature prominently. The review refresh has defined China as an epoch-defining and systemic challenge; it has implications for almost every area of government policy and the everyday lives of British people, as many of your Lordships are not only aware but may have experienced. We will strengthen our national security protections, align and co-operate with partners, and engage where it is consistent with our interests. It is important to say that, where it is consistent with these interests, we will engage constructively with the Chinese Government, with business and with people, and co-operate on shared priorities, but wherever the Chinese Communist Party’s actions and stated intent threaten our interests, we will take swift and robust action to protect ourselves and our interests.
The noble Baroness also raised the matter of MoD hacking. This is a very serious issue, which we of course take seriously. We have robust digital and cybersecurity safeguards, checks and barriers. The matter is under investigation. I do not know to what extent I am able to disclose further information, but I will make inquiries.
My noble friend Lord Soames, supported by my noble friend Lady Helic, raised the important issue of the western Balkans. I reassure the House that we remain committed to supporting regional security and stability, and to building resilience against malign influences. We continue to contribute to KFOR and the NATO headquarters. We have extended our contribution to KFOR—to the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance task unit, and to the strategic reserve force—until at least 2026. I reassure my noble friend Lady Helic that we strongly support the critical role that EUFOR continues to play in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we are exploring how to increase our bilateral presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina and our co-ordination with the EU on the ground.
Very recently, the Bled Strategic Forum was held in Slovenia and attended by my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach. I have had a report back, and it seems that it proved a very useful forum, not just for the discussion of the particular items envisaged but as an important opportunity for genuine engagement among the member states. As your Lordships will be aware, Slovenia is now an important presence as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. I say to my noble friend Lady Helic that I understand that, within Europe, Slovenia wants to focus on Ukraine, the western Balkans and Cyprus, and thematic priorities include women, peace and security, and conflict prevention.
On the specific issue of training for the Ukrainian soldiers in relation to women in conflict and violence, I am going to ask the specific question to get more information. I shall write to my noble friend.
On procurement, a subject raised by a number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Lee of Trafford, we will respond to the Select Committee report that is under way. We dispute that defence procurement is broken; we say that it is not broken, and there is evidence that we are on target with a vast change in how we are dealing with procurement. The Type 26 programme has not had poor oversight. We have made, through decisions on E-7, savings of £720 million, and with the uplift of £5 billion over the next two years we are continuing to ensure that we will deliver world-leading equipment to provide our people with the capabilities they need.
The important reforms made within the department in procurement, in addition to setting time limits for delivery of hard equipment at five years and digital programmes at three years, have vastly improved the professionalism of the senior responsible owners and programme directors. We are engaging much earlier in strategic conversations with industry and we are keeping an eye on exportability of whatever we decide we need.
The noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Snape, raised the matter of recruitment. The Army’s recruiting partnering project continues to recruit in large numbers the talent we need, and it is a diverse talent, to maintain a competitive advantage. That is demonstrated by achieving between 98% and 100% of the recruitment target between 2019 and 2022, even during the pressures of the Covid pandemic.
My noble friend Lord Tugendhat raised the issue of stockpiles. I can confirm that contracts worth over £285 million have been placed since March 2023 in support of increasing and maintaining stockpile levels through investment with industry. My noble friend also raised the issue of the Baltic states. I can confirm that we are an important contributor to JEF, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for noting that. We maintain our operational efficacy at all times.
I still have a great pile of notes, which no doubt would be of riveting interest if I had time to read them, but they are going to lead me into trouble with the Whips, so I think I had better look to bring my remarks to a close. This has been a genuinely interesting and stimulating debate. Noble Lords have asked whether this is something more than a courtesy opportunity for a discussion—yes, it is. We play close attention to the views expressed in this House, and these views will be used to inform and make us reflect on how we approach what we are doing within the MoD.
As our former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace understood, in a fraught world defence has never been more important. A number of your Lordships emphatically reaffirmed that. Our previous Defence Secretary accelerated the MoD to become a world-class organisation, and that is reflected by the recently published refreshed defence Command Paper, which provides a serious road map for our future and has had a good reception—people regard it as a very solid piece of work. My new Secretary of State wants to make sure that progress continues. I have had very constructive and cordial engagement with him. Our task in the MoD, led by our new Secretary of State, Grant Shapps, is quite simply to ensure that progress continues and that our magnificent Armed Forces continue to deliver for our nation.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, I think we can safely say that this House has taken note of the role of the Armed Forces and the UK’s defence policy, in what has been an exceptional debate. We have heard some very informative and important speeches from many people whose interests and experience do not, in my view, get enough hearing in these defence debates. I would like to endorse my noble friend Lord Sterling’s request that we should in the future, if we can, move defence debates so that they have a full day and all these important matters are able to be heard.
I was Minister of State for the Armed Forces from 1994 to 1997—by far the most marvellous time I ever spent, really. The argument about the balance between commitments and resources was rampant then, as I am sure all of us remember. The arguments were all very much the same and they remain the same, as do the forecasts: it was all very difficult—there were endless difficulties overseas and great instability—so we needed to cancel something. Actually, as the Minister said, the Ministry of Defence continues constantly to search for better ways of doing its business. Of course it does but, as she said, the truth is that, however much we spend, it will not be enough.
I thank everyone from all sides of the House for taking part in this fascinating and most rewarding debate, and the Minister for summing up.
Life Skills and Citizenship
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Garden of Frognal
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that life skills and citizenship are taught in primary and secondary schools.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this debate. I thank all who are taking part and apologise that they have only two minutes to speak. I also bring apologies from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that he is unavoidably unable to be with us on a topic where he has great expertise.
It is widely recognised that personal and social development are key aims of education at all levels. However, there are only minimal requirements on schools and funding pressures mean that these areas do not get the priority they deserve. DfE advice for education providers is that they should include
“other non-qualification activity to develop students’ character, broader skills, attitudes and confidence, and support progression”.
This might include their ability to travel independently, to cook and eat healthily, to stay safe and to understand their all-important personal finances. This should be at the heart of education. Employers tend not to prioritise academic qualifications. They look for resilience, problem-solving, contributions to the community—life skills that impact on young people, our communities and our country.
I am currently on a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, to look at education for 11 to 16 year-olds. As we take evidence, it is becoming increasingly clear that our current school priorities are not fit for purpose, whatever the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, may think. The EBacc and other programmes are directed to academic achievements, with GCSE, A-level and university being the main drivers. Young people whose interests and talents lie in more practical directions are largely overlooked, their motivation declining with every year when “Hamlet” and calculus are deemed more important than engineering, catering, music, the arts—indeed, all forms of creativity. Preparation for adult life is given minimal attention.
There are some brilliant citizenship programmes where young people learn the key skills of working with others, communication and self-management. They are taught about democracy; the importance of voting; human, moral, legal and political rights and duties; tolerance and diversity; and the invaluable contributions that can be made by volunteers. They are advised of financial literacy to enable them to manage their future incomes; of course, this is particularly important in these times of hardship and so much more relevant than algebra. When did noble Lords last use quadratic equations? They were fun while they lasted—I thoroughly enjoyed them—but by golly were they transient. Pupils are pointed to sex and health education although citizenship is not the same as PSHE, important as that is. They learn about ways in which they can play their part in the community, such as caring for others, old and young, disabled or sick, who may need help in everyday life, and the satisfaction that comes from activities that earn them money but help the world to be a better place.
As chair of the cadet health check team, I am constantly encouraged by the achievements and life skills of cadets, helped immeasurably by the committed adult volunteers who change young lives. The coalition Government boosted the availability of cadets in state schools with the cadet expansion programme. The University of Northampton recently produced a report showing the immense value of cadet training to individuals and the community. Of course, the independent sector has long seen the immeasurable value of cadets and other uniformed youth organisations, which breed leadership skills. It is to the credit of the Government that they are continuing their support, particularly for disadvantaged young people in state schools to have opportunities to discover the immense variety of activities that will enhance their lives. They could lead to careers in the military but that is not the purpose of the cadets, whose main purpose is to challenge the young to achieve more than they thought possible and to face risks in controlled environments and under supervision. The glee and satisfaction on the faces of cadets who have faced fearsome challenges successfully is always wonderful to behold. The boost it gives to self-confidence and self-respect is invaluable.
At my remote girls’ school, there was no mention of life skills or citizenship. I still remember the only lecture that touched on our futures, which was when a rather superior gentleman gazed at us and said, “Well, girls, most of you will get married so you won’t need to bother with a career. A few will go to university so you have another three years to think about the future. For the rest of you, you could be a teacher, a secretary or a nurse”—end of careers lecture. How he spun that out for an hour, I still cannot remember, but what a bewildering choice for us all.
When I graduated from Oxford, happily engaged to a wonderful RAF pilot, I was again offered three options: teacher, secretary or unemployable. In time, I was grateful to her for being so brutally realistic. We moved 24 times in 30 years, never had much money, and my husband’s frequent promotions always seemed to carry additional expensive social responsibilities. I did indeed drift into teaching and discovered the hard way that teaching skills are very different from academic ones. None of my pupils seemed interested in medieval French, which was a main contributor to my degree. I also found work as a clerical officer, a filing clerk and a copy typist—never, alas, as a secretary. There were also times when I was indeed unemployable: when having small children, when my husband’s postings called for a full-time wife and when I could not persuade anybody to employ me. It is difficult to be a good citizen when you feel that you are no use to anyone.
When I was a “compulsory wife”, I was aware that we had no guidance or training to help in our roles, which were apparently essential to our husbands’ success. I proposed training to include public speaking, chairing committees and comforting the bereaved. I was particularly concerned with welfare counselling in the hands of the untrained, as I had witnessed the harm that well-meaning but ignorant wives could do. There were other skills that we were just expected to have. Although there are no longer compulsory partners, I understand that this programme still exists at the Staff College for partners of senior military people. There was a touching male assumption that women just had relevant skills but, of course, that was always flawed. We all need help with life skills.
When we appeared settled in London, I found work with City & Guilds which was looking for graduates with teaching experience—heigh-ho, I covered two of those—and stayed with it for 20 years working on vocational qualifications, so full of life skills and good citizenship. Why do the Government not fully appreciate vocational or indeed technical or craft skills?
Like many women of my generation and older who were denied careers, I turned to volunteering with the CAB and SSAFA, welfare counselling and even as a reluctant organist in RAF chapels. My desire to contribute came more from my family than my education. My mother, who had a first-class degree from Cambridge, was denied graduation—it was not until 1948 that Cambridge allowed its women students to graduate—and she had to retire from the Civil Service as soon as she married, but she did constant good work with the church, marriage guidance and tutoring.
Of course, as I now know, we can all be good citizens in myriad ways and life skills accrue with experience. The importance of these subjects at primary school is vital, particularly for children who find academic school subjects taxing. If you are constantly near the bottom of the class, how important it is to learn the life skills of tolerance, kindness, curiosity, listening, hearing and speaking. Oracy is often overlooked in the curriculum, but being able to express oneself plays a key part in success in life.
For children whose home lives are limiting, discouraging or even dangerous, the importance of school to enable them to cope and thrive is crucial. Children who have caring responsibilities, and there are more of them than we appreciate, are forced to learn life skills at too early an age. The school curriculum should be wide enough to encourage and support them.
We need a long, hard look at our education system. I hope our committee will have some pointers to a more relevant and productive time at school. All children have interests and skills which could be channelled into fulfilling lives. None should feel that the only way to be noticed or make a difference is to end up on the streets in gangs, empowered only by damage and destruction. We must move away from the academic snobbery which has limited employability and fulfilment for so many. We need engineers, builders, retailers, plumbers, hairdressers and artists.
Our creative industries are among the most productive in the country, yet music, drama and art have disappeared from many state schools. We hear that music hubs are to be reduced by 63%. Hubs have spent years establishing relationships and partnerships with schools and music establishments; there is a great danger that the restructure will leave many young musicians and would-be musicians bereft of music education.
It would revolutionise school for so many young people if their future needs, interests and talents were recognised. It would benefit the community and the country too if schools prioritised turning out good citizens—children who feel confident that they have the skills and knowledge to be useful. Will the Minister say what measures the Government are taking to ensure that life skills and citizenship are taught in all primary and secondary schools by qualified and committed teachers? The next generation deserves nothing less. I beg to move.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for obtaining this important debate and for such an excellent introductory speech. Schools do not single-handedly teach life skills and citizenship but only supplement what is taught and mainly caught in families. Of course, that can be far from ideal but, particularly in how sex and relationships education is taught, schools can contradict good values parents seek to instil in their children, which are often faith-based. Parents have found their children learning to be “sex positive” in their attitudes to relationships, which means
“stepping away from monogamy-based assumptions”.
Sex education used to be based on evidenced human biology; now it imposes gender and coercive liberal ideology, which is causing unnecessary confusion and stress. Will the Minister confirm when much-needed guidance in this area will be published by the Government?
Similarly, citizenship education that teaches critical race theory and other forms of cultural Marxism as fact is indoctrinating young people and denying them the skills to evaluate critically current strands of thought. The pervasiveness of these ideologies highlights that everyone needs a belief system to live by. By ignoring faith-based beliefs, schools are in fact promoting atheism—the belief that there is nothing. On what grounds do I say this? Teaching against committed family relationships contradicts tenets particularly those of Christianity, which is predicated completely on our status as children of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Flimsy manmade ideologies that insist there is nothing of the divine beg the question that if there is nothing how come there is something? It is impossible to have something from nothing. All human beings face these existential questions, so what is the Government’s attitude towards this de facto teaching of atheism in state schools?
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I start by reminding noble Lords of my education interests in the register, in particular as chair of the E-ACT multi-academy trust and as a director of Suklaa Ltd. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for how she opened the debate, although I say to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that I think I disagreed with pretty much everything that he said.
We must start by recognising the capacity limits in the time that children spend in classrooms. The curriculum is already overwhelming for teachers and learners and, if we are to add more to it, it has to be at the expense of something that we are willing to take away. The conundrum, however, is that children are leaving school ill prepared to prosper in a complex, dynamic world—surely, then, we should make more room for life skills and citizenship education. Some argue for adding it to PSHE, which is too often where citizenship is also taught now. When I was Schools Minister, I added financial literacy to the subject, and I welcome the inclusion of relationship and sex education, but that part of the timetable is now full.
I argue that the conundrum can be resolved through rebalancing the curriculum. Our “knowledge-rich” curriculum, the EBacc and the nature of Ofsted inspections combine to deliver a highly academic diet in primary and secondary schools. There is so much detailed content crammed in that, as the Institute of Physics told your Lordships’ Education for 11–16 Year Olds Committee, there is no space to teach “the big ideas”. If we stripped out a lot of the minutiae of the curriculum, we could free teachers to be more relevant and engaging and include life skills and citizenship across the curriculum. This was the vision of my Private Member’s Bill in the last Session. I wanted a new aim for the national curriculum, instilling
“an ethos and ability to care for oneself, others and the natural environment, for present and future generations”.
More knowledge is not power; it is boring. But powerful knowledge is exciting and empowering. It must be relevant to the here and now, deliver life skills and make us successful sustainable citizens, and it will follow when we deliver a broader and more balanced curriculum.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a state secondary school teacher myself, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and thank her for this opportunity. The teaching of these subjects is part of a more fundamental discussion—as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, just said—about our whole curriculum.
The Skills Builder Partnership and Edge Foundation recently published a report that estimated that the lack of vital skills, such as problem-solving, teamwork and leadership, cost the UK economy £22 billion pounds last year. These skills, like the creative skills that contribute to the UK’s vital creative industry, are not passed on genetically or by osmosis; for most children, they are mainly learned at school. If we can enrich children with these skills, we can improve not only their life chances but the chances of those around them.
We should be teaching life skills and citizenship all day every day to our students as an embedded part of every subject, not as a separate subject. Problem-solving, both mental and practical, should have a much larger share of the curriculum. Teamwork, critical thinking and analysis, physical activity, manual dexterity and personal health and well-being would be far more useful than the rote learning that still clings to much of our national curriculum.
We should not be educating children so that they can go on to university; we should be educating children so that they can go into life. University should be a choice, not an inevitability and, whether they choose to go or not, our school leavers should be robust, practical, critical thinkers who are better prepared for a life as healthy, compassionate, ambitious, self-aware, resilient and employable citizens.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for securing this important debate, and I thank her and all noble Lords who preceded me. I, too, want young people to be educated to take their full place as citizens, educated in this country’s history, cultural heritage and traditions, which are characterised by its protection of freedoms—economic, political and, over time, religious—and its thriving voluntarism, with the state kept in its place by an informed democracy and the ballot box.
The question is: how can this best be achieved? Should—or, indeed, can—it be done by designating teachers and lesson time to potted citizenship classes, recruiting a cadre of teachers trained in what officials believe to be the fashionable subjects of citizenship today? At the very best, this can do little more than skim the surface but, at worst, it could end up undermining beliefs, traditions and aims that we all seek.
Today’s national curriculum already requires pupils in secondary schools to be taught specific citizenship programmes for 11 to 16 year-olds. For instance, GCSE headings cover such things as the development of the political system of democratic government; the role of citizens, Parliament and the monarch; the nature of the rules and laws of our justice system; voluntary bodies; and, of course, as has been mentioned, the management of finances, to mention but a few. Teaching these can best be achieved as a by-product of learning important subjects such as history, literature, classics, religion and mathematics, with teachers educated to degree level in their subjects. It is good, confident teachers who engage their pupils and can illustrate and make comparisons with today, imparting the skills needed and the aptitude to develop, whatever path in life is taken, be it professional or vocational.
I urge the Government to focus on recruiting able, academically qualified and committed teachers for all schools—primary as well as secondary—in the central subjects. This is the surest way to understand a culture characterised by parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and individual freedom.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome today’s debate, and I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for introducing it in such a marvellous autobiographical way. In my short contribution, I will say something about the citizenship element of this debate. When you look around the world, you see that democracy is in a very fragile state. In many countries, including our closest allies, it is under real attack, if not violent attack. We have a great duty to help to preserve our democracy for the future, and our education system will be a key part of our success.
The broad issues of citizenship should start early on, at the primary school stage, in an appropriate way. Sometimes, I look up at the Gallery and see a group of primary school children—in fact, I can see one there now, watching our debate. It is a pleasure to see them. We have had several groups here since this debate started. I remember coming to this House when I was the age of some of the people here now, and I sat in the side gallery—it must have been about 1957 or 1958. I no longer remember the subject of the debate, and these children may not remember it either, but they will remember the sense of occasion and something of the experience.
I am not saying that citizenship education amounts solely to a visit to this House or another place, but it is an important part—and our education department does a wonderful job of bringing in students and young people to learn about this place. I am one of those Members who welcomes the chance to see schools and colleges, and I hope to do so more. I find that there is a great deal of interest in how things work and in democracy. When I last met a group of sixth-form students, they asked some pretty pertinent questions about this place.
My time is up. I sometimes feel that, in a debate like this, we should have the Minister’s speech first, so we can better understand what is in the Government’s mind. I look forward to hearing what she has to say. We cannot take anything for granted—and an active programme of citizenship can help to preserve the very democracy that we value so highly.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I was lucky enough to be a member of the committee that looked at this issue, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. In our report, The Ties That Bind, we found that citizenship education, which should be the first great opportunity for instilling our values and encouraging social cohesion, was often being subsumed into individual development. This is undoubtedly important, but it is not the same as learning about the political and social structure of the country, how it is governed, how laws are made and how they are enforced by an independent judiciary. It also does not offer an opportunity for practising civic engagement in schools, local communities and beyond. We said then that the Government should reprioritise the subject by enabling a target for every secondary school in the country to have a dedicated, qualified teacher.
The Government’s main instrument for delivering citizenship programmes is the National Citizen Service. I am a long-standing critic of this organisation. It was born with a huge endowment of political will from the Conservative Party, and it was given the status of a royal charter body, which it neither needed nor merited. It receives £63 million—the lion’s share of government funding for youth services. Its website lists eight things that it does: everything from health and well-being to working together for success and employability. Deep down, in the middle of that list, is citizenship and British values. There is no detail about any of the work it does with schools, other than statistics about the number of people and places that have been engaged on short programmes that last for six weeks in the summer. It has a new chair and a new strategy for the next five years. Will the Minister agree that now is the time to have a proper comparative analysis of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the National Citizen Service, as opposed to that of other organisations that have a long history of working in this field?
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee that produced the report, The Ties That Bind: Citizenship and Civic Engagement in the 21st Century. It exposed major failings in the teaching of citizenship in schools. The Government’s response did nothing to suggest that these failings were being addressed. The Liaison Committee’s follow-up report, which was debated in April this year, again pointed out continuing failures in this area. All this is well set out in the excellent Library briefing.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, the chair of the original committee, much regrets that he is not able to be part of today’s debate because of an operation. In April, he said that
“our follow-up report made a number of recommendations at paragraphs 72 to 77 about Ofsted’s work. It is no exaggeration to say that Ofsted rejected the lot. It persistently mixes up citizenship education with PSHE—personal, social, health and economic education. In truth, they are completely different”.—Official Report, 17/4/23; col. GC 178.]
Is the Minister satisfied that Ofsted now distinguishes citizenship education from PSHE, or is the former still too often subsumed in the latter?
I will again raise two of the many concerns from the earlier reports. First, is a record now being kept of the number of trainee teachers in citizenship education? If not, why not? Secondly, are bursaries now available for those who want to teach the subject, as there are in other subjects where teachers are in short supply?
When we look around the world today, we see far too many oppressive dictatorships, military coups, managed democracies and elective autocracies. Of the 195 countries in the world, only 72 are democracies or flawed democracies. Democracy is a precious historical achievement, but it is fragile, as the noble Viscount just emphasised. There is no guarantee that it can survive. Young people should be taught why democracy matters and how to be a responsible citizen in democracy. Too often, at the moment, this is not being done at all, or only very inadequately.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the diocese which I am privileged to serve has 138 church schools in it and another group of independent schools with Christian foundations. I am glad to have the opportunity to visit them regularly—I have been in one already this morning. As I go round, I am heartened by the teaching I see already going on on citizenship and value-based education. I want to comment, though, on just a couple of things and to suggest that, while it is important that the Government are clear what they are doing, there is actually a vital role for families and a vital role in collaborating with other bodies that are seeking to do similar sort of work.
I want to comment on financial education. The Government recognise the importance of financial skills, but research indicates that children form their habits around money by about the age of seven, yet no time is allocated in primary school curricula for financial education: 5% of parents believe their children are leaving school with the adequate skills to manage their money. Though not part of the national curriculum, programmes such as LifeSavers, which the Church of England is working on, could be a huge help, teaching children about this important life skill. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to work further with organisations providing financial education?
Then I shall say a very brief word on citizenship. In this era of increasing partisanship and division, our fundamental British principles of mutual respect and freedom of conscience are vital. Again, the Church of England’s project, Living Well Together, aims to help young people and equip them to better understand different beliefs. Is the Minister aware of this project, and will His Majesty’s Government give their support to it?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for obtaining this debate and for her excellent introduction. My focus is on the vital life skill of financial awareness and the need to include financial education in primary schools. Children nowadays do not handle cash every day and learn to budget, as some of us here did in the past. As adults, they will have to manage rent, mortgages and household bills. They must be equipped for this, but the evidence is that too many school leavers are not. Children do not see cash going out of their physical pockets. In a cash economy, no cash means you cannot spend. But cash is no more.
As a child, I knew if I had the pennies to buy sweets. It was easy. A seven year-old faced with a bank or card statement has a much harder task. Children must therefore be taught. Skills must be embedded young. To manage money and to budget is a vital life skill. Without the skill, debt and disaster follow. We know that gambling is a growing problem among the young as well as adults. As the Centre for Social Justice has explained, money habits and behaviours that will stick for life are formed by the age of seven, but two-thirds of primary schoolchildren receive no formal financial education. While financial education is now taught in secondary schools, since 2014, teachers say that too many children leave without an adequate grasp of finance, so it must start before then, in primary schools. We must act now and incorporate financial education in primary schools. I ask the Minister: if not, why not?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for her very lively introduction to this debate and for the opportunity to repeat a key Green principle—that education should be for life, not just for exams or, indeed, just for jobs. That means we need far more stress on such skills as food growing, cooking, first aid and financial management. I am going to focus particularly on the area of citizenship and begin by questioning the division that occurs, with the idea that there are life skills and there is citizenship. I see being a good citizen as an essential life skill; the two things are not separate.
In the interests of being democratic, I am going to go to the report from the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK, which was a participative democracy project run by the Constitution Unit of the University College London and Involve. One conclusion from that group of citizens was that good democracy requires an informed and active electorate, so that people understand politics, the consequences of their vote and how to hold the Government to account—boy, do we need a lot more of that.
We need to think about how people actually learn, and for this I am going to go way back in history to Confucius, who said:
“I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand”.
The thesis I would put in this short speech is that we need to see far more democracy in schools. We need to give pupils, like the young people who have just been in our Gallery, the chance to decide what happens in their schools, what they learn, how they study and how the school operates. It is by doing that democracy, starting from the younger stages, that we will truly prepare people to be citizens who, as we must have for our future, make politics what they do, not have done to them.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for securing this important debate. Life skills in schools are crucial in preparing our young people for a successful, rewarding and happy life, and I would like to declare my interest as vice-chair of the APPG on Financial Education for Young People.
Financial literacy is a vital life skill that gives our young people the ability to better navigate and manage their money and gives them better chances in life. Research by Cambridge University, published by the Money and Pensions Service, suggests that habits and attitudes towards money are formed around the age of seven. Further research in 2021 by the Centre for Financial Capability has found only one in five primary-aged children receive any form of financial education. Recent research by Santander shows that over two-thirds, or 68%, of parents believe teaching children about money should start young and be on the primary-school curriculum, and nearly 70% of UK adults say better financial education would have increased their ability to manage their finances as the cost of living rises. If we can give our young people a really good start to their financial education in primary schools, it would help lay a solid foundation to further their knowledge in secondary schools, where it is a compulsory part of the curriculum.
Financial education is on the curriculum in primary schools in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, so why not put it on the curriculum in England? There are some really good examples of financial education provision in some of our primary schools, assisted by organisations like Young Enterprise, but it cannot be right that not all of our children have the same access and, as a result, potentially risk missing out on achieving higher earning potential, less chance of debt, more savings—and the list goes on. We cannot control what decisions young people will make later on in life, but we can make sure that every child leaves school with this important life skill. I believe beginning this journey in primary school is necessary and it should be added as a compulsory subject to the primary school curriculum.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, citizenship teaching can help develop an understanding and respect for the norms of society. But these norms are constantly changing; what was considered acceptable in one generation, can be seen as cruel and oppressive in another. The less than equal treatment of women was the accepted norm until quite recently. In the 1960s, it was perfectly okay to have adverts in shop windows for accommodation to let stipulating “No dogs, blacks or Irish”. In the early 1980s, it was lawful to stop a Sikh child going to school in a turban.
A Christian hymn reminds us,
“New occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth”.
It is not only time, but also space that makes ancient good uncouth. In our shrinking, interdependent world of the 21st century, we cannot afford the old luxury of disparaging foreigners, including Scots and Welsh, as lesser beings, to strengthen our sense of unity and superiority. Nor should we look on other religions with traditional negativity. We are, as Sikhism teaches us, all members of one somewhat imperfect family. It is important that we move away from the old narrow view of identity and equip pupils to meet new challenges and responsibilities in a shrinking and interdependent world.
Does the Minister agree that citizenship teaching should not be based on past norms but on underlying ethical imperatives? The often-ignored ethical three Rs—right, wrong, and responsibility—must be taught and learnt in schools.
While the RE curriculum provides for the teaching of different religions as discrete entities, we should also recognise ethical commonalities between faiths, which I believe should underpin the teaching of citizenship to help children meet the challenges of the world of tomorrow.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for securing this timely debate. I say timely because it follows the recent publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report, Progress on disability rights in the United Kingdom. I pay tribute at this point to the commission’s excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for producing this report in the face of some very unpleasant distractions. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will share my concern that, as the commission has noted,
“Although some positive steps have been taken to combat bullying, more needs to be done to tackle negative stereotypes or prejudice against disabled people”.
As I can sadly attest, bullying and discriminatory behaviours in relation to disability start at school, and that is where the sneers, the snide remarks or worse—which I still encounter—need to be nipped in the bud. This is central to nurturing a society in which equality and respect for the individual inform citizenship.
The plethora of DfE guidance on the importance of respecting each other as unique and equal, and on how stereotypes, including those based on disability, can cause damage, is all very welcome. But in closing, I ask my noble friend, in responding to the important question of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, if she could also explain what plans her department has to evaluate the impact of its guidance in terms of the lived experience of school and bullying from the perspective of pupils like Archie? Archie features in the BBC’s excellent key stage two class clips film for PSHE, “Archie’s Story: cerebral palsy”, which I commend to my noble friend and indeed to all noble Lords.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Garden for initiating this important debate, and for her valuable, witty and life-affirming contribution. I suppose we ought to start by understanding what we mean by life skills. The list of life skills varies depending on who you talk to and the circumstances and needs of society. There are various lists, but, for me, UNESCO and the World Health Organization hit the mark. They say that life skills are problem solving, critical thinking, effective communication skills, decision-making, creative thinking, interpersonal and relationship skills, empathy and coping with stress and emotions. I would add understanding, relating and engaging with people from different backgrounds and cultures to that list.
The next big question is how to develop and provide for these skills. It cannot just be a curriculum unit on decision-making; it must be a whole-school ethos which supports, develops, encourages and ensures that all its practices are aware of these issues. There must be related curriculum opportunities to reinforce this, but it is the ethos that the governors, head teacher, staff and parents develop which is so important. In early Ofsted inspections, a school’s ethos and values were not things it would report on, because when it went into the school, it had an understanding of what the school’s ethos was.
Finally, there are other skills children need so that they can be safe and protected. One example very close to my heart is that of life-saving water safety skills. I have a Private Member’s Bill on that topic and, although I have run out of time now, I hope that the Minister will take it on board.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak today and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for initiating and introducing such an interesting debate.
Labour is committed, as part of our breaking down the barriers to opportunity mission, to building a broad school education that enables children to thrive and to develop life skills. Life skills should be taught throughout the curriculum. When I was chair of governors at a London academy, the pupils I met were most keen to access financial education. Citizenship education is vital. It is right that we ensure that children and young people understand the role of active citizenship—including an understanding of the role of government, Parliament and the justice system—and develop an interest in volunteering, responsible activity and activism, and critical thinking skills, as well as an understanding of how we should treat each other.
Part of that education must be the normalising of engagement with politicians and institutions, and I commend the work of the Parliament Education Centre, which opens up what we do. Many Peers also take part in the Learn with the Lords programme, which includes Peers being zoomed into classrooms all over the country, at both primary and secondary level, as well as speaking to children who are being home-schooled.
Even so, most children will not get the opportunity to come to Parliament or speak to politicians on a regular basis, so maintaining the teaching of citizenship in schools is also vital. Good teaching that makes politics and civic engagement interesting requires investment. The fall in specialist citizenship teacher numbers is regrettable. It would be useful for the Minster to tell us how the Government think that this issue, which is part of a wider issue, will impact citizenship and life skills. Can she also tell us when the Government next intend to make changes to the citizenship curriculum, and how they plan to embed better a range of life skills across the curriculum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, on securing the debate and thank all noble Lords for their brief but pertinent and thoughtful contributions.
Like every noble Lord who has spoken today, we want pupils to leave school prepared for further study, work and other aspects of adult life. That is why every state-funded school has a duty to offer a curriculum which is broad and balanced, which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils, and which prepares them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for his remarks on the important role of the family in all those aspects, alongside the school. I also thank him for raising awareness of the Living Well Together programme, which I have noted.
Subjects such as relationships, sex and health education and citizenship directly support the development of life skills. However, in the broad statutory framework, schools have considerable flexibility to organise the content and delivery of their curriculums. Schools can therefore reinforce personal development in other subjects, and through their whole-school policies and extracurricular enrichment offer, in a way that focuses on what their pupils need. From her experience in City and Guilds, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, gave examples of subjects which were about one particular topic but gave skills in a number of other areas—that is exactly how the Government see the existing curriculum. That issue was also raised by the noble Lords, Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord Hampton.
I turn to statutory relationships, sex and health education. This equips young people to manage their academic, personal and social lives in a positive way. Teaching in secondary schools develops knowledge about respectful relationships, including online, importantly, and develops pupils’ understanding of health and well-being, how to identify issues and where to seek help. The noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, talked about the ethical principles that need to underpin some of these issues.
My noble friend Lord Farmer asked about the timing of the review of the RSHE curriculum. A public consultation is expected this autumn, with revised guidance being published in 2024, and an advisory panel is providing advice on what should be taught in RSHE and at what age. I can clarify for my noble friend that the Government firmly believe in the importance of religious education, which is why it remains compulsory for all state-funded schools at all key stages.
The citizenship curriculum is compulsory within the national curriculum at secondary school and prepares pupils to play a full and active part in society. It is organised around core content about democracy and the political system. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and my noble friend Lady Lawlor both raised this. It enables pupils to understand their statutory rights, civic duties and responsibilities and to become the active citizens that your Lordships have described in their speeches today.
Other essential life skills such as financial literacy and media literacy are specifically included in citizenship education. My noble friends Lady Sater and Lord Sandhurst were among noble Lords who focused on the importance of financial literacy. I hope that the House knows that the Government feel that financial literacy is extremely important. It is covered in the national curriculum, within the maths curriculum at key stages 1 to 4 and within citizenship at key stages 3 and 4. That covers the functions and uses of money, including personal budgeting and money management. It also includes—unfortunately—taxes, debt and financial risk, as well as financial products. In the primary citizenship curriculum, pupils learn about where money comes from, how it can be used and how to save for the future.
Noble Lords did not particularly dwell on the importance of PE and sport within the curriculum, but the Government believe that it should be a core part of what every good school offers to pupils. It can help develop some of the essential personal qualities, such as resilience and the ability to work well as a team, which a number of your Lordships raised. That is why we have committed over £600 million over the next two years to fund high-quality PE and school sport in primary schools, with an additional £57 million up to March 2025 to support more sport outside school hours.
Noble Lords also touched on the importance of cultural education in developing life skills. That is why we are investing £115 million in music and the arts up to 2025, in addition to core school budgets. We have published a new music education plan and we will publish a cultural education plan in 2023 to support arts and heritage, working with DCMS and Arts Council England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, was critical of the EBacc. However, one of the key elements of it, which I know many of your Lordships would agree with, is its emphasis on the importance of learning a foreign language, given how that equips students with the tools and the mindset to connect with people from different backgrounds—which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised—and giving them an appreciation of cultures, customs and history around the world.
I simply do not recognise the description given by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, of the National Citizen Service. It works very closely with and actively supports local grass-roots youth organisations, and in 2022 over 120,000 young people took part in its work, which is open to all 16 and 17 year-olds, with particular support available for the most disadvantaged. However, I would echo the recognition by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, of the important work of our uniformed youth organisations.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, asked about Ofsted’s assessment of citizenship and education. It looks at that in relation to both the quality of education and the school’s support for a pupil’s personal development, so at how a school prepares its pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life in modern Britain, which many of your Lordships felt was extremely important.
I am left with some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Knight—I apologise if I misquote him—about how we can tweak or change the curriculum in a way to be able to fit in some of the life skills which your Lordships have alluded to this afternoon. I do not think that anyone in the Government disagrees with many of the aspirations with regard to life skills that were raised in the House today; the question is how we deliver them. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, put it very well when he gave the UNESCO definition of life skills but asked, “How do we prepare for those skills?”. Of course, the curriculum is an important part of that—although not the only part, as many of your Lordships recognised.
I point out to noble Lords who question our focus on a knowledge-rich curriculum that it is that curriculum which has delivered our extraordinarily successful creative industries and is delivering enormous innovation in technology, green skills and other areas. There are others in the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who understand better than I do about how children learn, but my understanding is that without basic knowledge in fundamental subjects, children cannot access what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, described as the powerful knowledge. Therefore, I am concerned when I listen to the House suggest that we should take part of the knowledge-rich elements out of the curriculum and replace them with life skills, because we know what can happen if we do that. It is the deprived and disadvantaged students who will be told that they do not need to aspire or get academic qualifications, and that that is good enough for them. No one in this House wants to return to the soft bigotry of low expectations.
EU Programmes
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, this is a momentous day for British science and technology as we have negotiated a great landmark deal, designed in the UK’s best interest—a hard-fought-for deal that will allow the UK’s world-leading scientists, researchers and businesses to participate with total confidence in both Horizon Europe and Copernicus. It gives the best and brightest of the UK’s scientific community access to the world’s largest research collaboration programme. It means that British scientists and businesses can co-operate with researchers not just in the EU but in Norway, New Zealand and Israel—expanding the reach and impact of British science and technology to every corner of the globe. With Korea and Canada looking to join these programmes in the future, we are opening the doors to further pioneering, international collaboration with a growing group of countries tomorrow.
We were always clear that we wanted to associate with Horizon, and that is why we had it in the trade and co-operation agreement. However, as honourable Members will know, we were not able to commence negotiations for over two years because the EU had linked it to the Northern Ireland protocol. It was the Prime Minister’s Windsor Framework that broke the deadlock and allowed us to commence intense negotiations. We said all along that we would only accept a good deal, which is why we did not take the first deal that was offered to us. Instead, we pursued a bespoke agreement that delivers for British taxpayers, British researchers and British businesses.
We will not pay for a second of the time in which we were not members of the programme. Our deal also protects and benefits hard-working taxpayers through a new clawback mechanism. What is more, our scientists and researchers can benefit from Horizon today, meaning that they can immediately bid into the programme, with certainty over funding. All calls in the 2024 work programme, including those that open for bids this year, will be funded through our association to Horizon Europe, while the few remaining 2023 work programme calls will be funded by the UK guarantee, as they have been to date.
But this is not just about Horizon. We needed a bespoke deal that gave us access only to EU programmes that would benefit the UK. Having listened to voices from our world-leading fusion sector, we will not be joining the Euratom programme. Instead, we are investing an additional £650 million straight into cutting-edge fusion programmes over the same period—assisting our journey to become a science and technology superpower by 2030.
When I first started this job, I made it my number one priority to listen to the voices and views of the scientific and tech communities. They told me that almost two-thirds of research funded through Horizon’s European Research Council grants leads to major scientific advances. I heard loud and clear how essential associating to Horizon was for the sector. I am delighted to now deliver on that. The deal we have negotiated has been warmly welcomed by the whole scientific community. It gives them the certainty they need to continue delivering long-term research and innovation that changes people’s lives for the better and to be truly global in outlook. But Members do not need to take my word for it. Today’s news has been supported by Universities UK, the Russell group, all four of our prestigious national academies, leading tech businesses including Airbus and Rolls-Royce, and countless more.
But this is not just about funding and support for universities and businesses. It is a deal that has real-world impact for people and communities throughout the UK. This deal is set to create and support thousands of new jobs as part of the next generation of research talent. The deal we have negotiated will allow the UK to continue playing a leading role on the international stage in solving the grand challenges of our time—from climate change and the race to net zero to finding cures for cancer, dementia and other life-threatening diseases.
Alongside this deal, the Government are proudly backing our science and tech communities. We have committed to invest £20 billion in R&D by the next financial year. That means more record funding on wider priorities, from harnessing the power of AI to improve our public services to tapping the potential of quantum computing. We will continue to strengthen our collaboration with countries beyond Europe, building on the success of the international science partnership fund we launched earlier this year to deliver truly global science with truly global benefits. Today, we take another giant leap in our mission to make Britain a science and tech superpower, and I am confident that scientists and businesses are ready to seize the moment. The horizon could not be brighter for British science and technology”.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, what a climbdown; what a humiliation. When it comes to Horizon Europe, the response is straightforward: “At last, what a relief”. The UK’s absence from Horizon has been enormously damaging to our national interest. It has cost our research, business and academic communities dear, with the loss of billions in funding as well as jobs and expertise—the very things that the Minister was praising as coming along now.
The Government’s failure to negotiate a continuation of the UK’s Horizon membership ahead of Brexit saw British researchers frozen out of projects even before we had formally left the EU. A number of EU national researchers have since opted to leave the UK and its institutions for good, changing the nature and skillset of our research ecosystem—a brain drain. By rejoining, some of this damage may be undone, but that process is likely to take many years. Would the Minister like to estimate how long it may take?
Of course, we welcome the announcement, but the Government do not deserve congratulations or credit. The main reason that UK researchers and businesses have missed out on three years of funding and collaboration is successive Conservative Administrations’ simple intransigence around the Northern Ireland protocol, and we all know that. Until a deal was done, nothing could happen with Horizon or anything else where we wanted to make progress with our friends and neighbours in the EU. Our rejoining Horizon was pitched as a quick and obvious follow-up to the Windsor Framework, yet it has taken more than half a year for the deal to be done and an announcement to be made. Colleagues across your Lordships’ House have asked for updates time and time again, but Ministers, including the current one, have been unable to provide anything meaningful, holding the line that talks were “ongoing”. With such clear potential benefits for our economy, why has this not been more of a priority?
I have several questions for the Minister. I appreciate that he may not be able to answer them all today, but I think that noble Lords will want full answers before the House rises for the Conference Recess. Ministers say that they have secured improved financial terms, but this has not been backed up. No figures have been published and no evidence has been provided. Can the Minister confirm what the UK will pay over the remainder of the Horizon period? It is not much of a claim to say that we have made significant progress and savings simply by not being part of the programme. Does the amount that the UK pays truly represent an improved settlement vis-à-vis the terms offered earlier in the Brexit process, or will it merely be a case of the Government having saved during the period in which we were not members?
Has the department undertaken any analysis of the cost to the economy of not being in Horizon over the past few years? What was the lost-opportunity cost to our country? If so, will the Minister commit to publishing those figures? From a practical perspective, can the Minister tell us about the agreement’s likely impact on SMEs? Will UK SMEs be able to participate in industrial schemes under the Horizon banner? Will companies be able to hold intellectual property arising from programme projects or access other funds that may supplement those offered through participation in Horizon? These kinds of considerations are key to growing our economy—something that this Government has singularly failed to do for a prolonged period.
Once again, we welcome the good news, but today must be about more than headlines. It must act as a turning point. The sad story of the past few years has been a succession of Tory Administrations who have put political infighting ahead of the national interest. Time and money have been wasted on alternative schemes and our national reputation has taken another unnecessary hit. What will happen to the Government’s Pioneer programme now that we are part of Horizon? How much did it cost to work that programme up and what will we have learned from the experience?
On a cheerful note, we must all gather together to welcome the announcement, wish UK funding applicants luck and hope that they will be able to gain from their collaboration with others. As we move towards the next election, we look forward to working to enhance our world-leading research base and to delivering the industrial strategy that so many important parts of our economy need and deserve. Horizon is a very important first step in that direction.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I declare a strong interest. My son came back to the United Kingdom after 10 years working at American universities as a systems biologist—which is one of the Government’s strategic priorities in science, as the Minister will know—on a Marie Curie European Union scheme. Had we not left the EU, he would have been applying for a European science council grant.
We on these Benches wholeheartedly welcome this agreement. We all need to be grateful to all those in the scientific community and the Government who did their best to maintain links and keep the negotiations going in spite of all the difficulties. I regret the overhyping of this agreement. Among the comments that have emerged from the scientific community, I note that from Professor Sir John Hardy from University College London, who says:
“Going back in is good. But irreversible damage has been done”
in the interval. Our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said that there was an
“unconscionable delay in reaching agreement”.
Now that we have an agreement, the hard work has to begin. If we are to become anything like a scientific superpower within the next seven years, a great deal needs to be done. One of the things that the Government have to recognise now is that there is a contradiction between their approach to how foreign scientists working in this country are treated when they are here—and, even more so, their families—and the idea that we will continue to attract the most talented in the world.
Scientific research is dependent on an international network, and that has to be a two-way network. Far too much in this announcement suggests that it is wonderful for British scientists and will give us access to foreign universities. We also want foreign scientists to work in British universities, but we have just had this announcement that the visa and health charges for foreign academics in this country and their wives, husbands and families will be increased from £15,000 to £25,000 in total over a five-year term. That is a severe disincentive. I heard about this 10 years ago when my son was first coming back, and some of his colleagues over there said that they would not come back to Britain because the way their American wives and families would be treated when they got here was so unwelcoming. That is a huge disincentive to Britain becoming a science superpower. It also contradicts government policy and suggests that the Home Office, the Department of Health and DSIT need to get their act together and sort this out.
The second thing we have to work on is pay. Academic pay for scientists in Britain has sunk by 25% in the last 10 to 15 years. The pay of a university lecturer running a laboratory in a British university is now lower than that of a post-doctoral researcher starting off in the United States—I speak with expertise on this. In an international market in which scientists are highly mobile, that is not attractive and will not get us anywhere like being a scientific superpower.
We on these Benches welcome this delayed decision. We regret that it is seen so much as a matter of what we get out of the hard bargain bilaterally and not as our joining a multilateral network in which there are multiple exchanges. There need to go on being multiple exchanges. We very much hope that DSIT will begin to learn the lessons of where we have made mistakes in recent years and on which we now need to improve.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Dealing first with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I think it is a stretch by anybody’s imagination to describe this as a climbdown and a humiliation, albeit while welcoming it. In principle, three major advances in our standing have been made with the deal: first, the creation of the clawback mechanism to mitigate the risk that we spend more than we receive; secondly, the fact that we do not spend any money on any time or activities to which we do not have access or where we are not a member; and, thirdly, the ability to withdraw from Euratom or other areas of the programme from which we did not benefit.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Can the Minister clarify in which year, during any of the time that we were part of Horizon, we ever needed to have a clawback arrangement? My understanding was that we were net beneficiaries from Horizon for the entirety of the programme.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As a number of noble Lords have observed in this debate and previously, the fact that we were not members of the Horizon programme was of great concern and probably did lasting damage to the UK’s scientific community. One way to protect ourselves from further lasting damage was to create the clawback mechanism, to make sure that the money we put in would not exceed the money we took out.
It is worth reminding noble Lords that the United Kingdom did not decide to withdraw from Horizon association; the EU withdrew our association from us—making an association with the Northern Ireland protocol—which we appealed. It has always been our preference to be a member of the Horizon programme. The negotiations were hard fought and necessarily took a long time. We feel that they have given us a more than reasonable result. I do not enjoy the overhyping that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, perhaps rightly points out, but on the other hand I think it a worthy cause for celebration that we are able to reassociate with the programme, which has been welcomed by the sector.
With respect to the Pioneer programme and the analysis of the opportunity cost, I argue that it would have been extremely reckless to have been negotiating with the EU and not had a programme. It would be like driving uninsured. I do not know the cost in terms of measuring the time of civil servants and other officials in creating the policy—I do not particularly know how to find out, but I am more than willing to try—but it was not a significant cost in that no actual investments were made beyond people’s time and effort to perform the preparations. The opportunity cost of the time we have missed in Horizon is a calculation that has to be performed at the end of the Horizon period in 2027, so that we can understand overall, end to end, what was paid and what was the effect of missing out.
Finally, I remind the House that the United Kingdom is putting £20 billion a year into R&D by 2024-25. This is the greatest increase ever in any public spending review period and shows how seriously we take our goals of becoming a science and technology superpower.
I will take back the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made on how visa charges and health charges will be very off-putting. I take that on board, as well as the comparison of academic pay for scientists. I will absolutely have a look at that.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I should mention to my noble friend the Minister and your Lordships that I am not entirely sure that this is the best deal for UK science. Why do I say that? International co-operation in academic subjects is desirable, but Horizon is limited mainly to one continent, Europe, together with its member states and some of its fringe countries: Turkey, Tunisia, and the northern Mediterranean. Globally, the only power involved is New Zealand. Britain is a global leader in its research in science and the humanities. The opportunities of Brexit should have been taken to build a super league, globally, that is not restricted to one continent. I hope my noble friend will take this on board, and aim to develop much wider links globally and to take a lead in both humanities and science research.
I also suggest that Horizon is bureaucratic, and scientists who are in favour of it none the less regard it as cumbersome. Finally, there will be political strings attached. For example, Switzerland was a member of Horizon but was barred in 2014 over its immigration rules—
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I say to the Minister that there are strings attached. Will he reassure the House and ask the Government not to allow the pressure from the Windsor Framework to inhibit our freedom to pursue scientific research, and get a cast-iron guarantee that it will not be used politically against us?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. A statistic that I like to use, which maybe will give some reassurance that Horizon is not purely an EU-based body—I am sorry if it sounds rather arbitrary—is that our association with Horizon 2020 produced 237,000 collaborative links in 163 different countries, 28,000 of which were outside the EU, so although the EU is the largest body involved it does give global reach. I note also the proposed association of Korea and Canada in that light.
I cannot make a commitment as to whether forces adversarial to us could use our membership against us; it is not up to the British Government but to the Governments who choose to act in that way. However, we feel a renewed sense of partnership with our friends at the EU, particularly following the Windsor Framework. I hope that sets my noble friend’s mind somewhat at rest with respect to the internationally reaching nature of Horizon.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement—how could I not? I have devoted most of my precious Parliamentary Questions to seeking that the UK rejoins Horizon. However, I do not want the House to be under any doubt about the damage that has been done by the delay, including the six months or more since the Windsor Framework. I very much echo the words of our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rees, in that respect. From the Statement, you would never guess the frustration of the science community in having to take part in endless meetings and discussions about a Pioneer plan B, when the objective all along for the science community was to rejoin Horizon Europe.
I have only a few moments to ask a question, so to be practical, how quickly are we going to be able to wrap this up? I spoke today to the Royal Society. Is has no details at all as yet about the mechanisms that the Government are going to alert people to in order to enable them to apply—and we want people to apply as soon as possible. Visas have been mentioned, and this is a very important point: will they be special visas? As has been said already, we want the best and the brightest to come to Britain. These are important practical questions. In a way, it has never just been about the money; it is about the co-operation. I hope that this agreement will pave the way for improved relations between the UK and our European partners in other areas. I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments upon it.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question, and of course pay tribute to his relentless focus on holding us to account on making sure the Horizon deal went through. I am delighted that he at least welcomes that part of the news. On taking advantage of Horizon, I am told that, as of right now, British researchers and institutions can bid for Horizon 2024 calls. The vast majority of open calls now are for 2024, and those are open and available for British institutions. There are some remaining 2023 calls, which are supported by the Horizon guarantee scheme, as before. We are able now to move quite fast. On the question on visas, I will have to write to him, as I do not have any information on that at present.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this is, on the face of it, excellent news for the sciences. Now we need excellent news for education and those whose interests are in the arts and humanities as well as the sciences, through the Government renegotiating to rejoin Erasmus. If Turing was that great, Northern Ireland would not be as interested as it is in the access to Erasmus that Ireland is providing funding for. Turing might be better than nothing, but does the Minister not agree that better than nothing is a dispiriting ambition? We should rejoin Erasmus as soon as possible.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Better than nothing is indeed a dispiriting thing. Better than Erasmus is the assessment that the Government made when declining the opportunity, on negotiation of the TCA, to remain part of Erasmus and choosing instead to put in place the Turing scheme, on the grounds that it offers not only better outcomes but better value for money for British taxpayers.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for accepting that this Statement is overblown. I think some of us are getting a bit fed up with these Statements that are claiming the earth when, really, it is a damage limitation exercise.
I chaired the EU Services Sub-Committee for two or three years, and we spent a lot of time discussing the importance of Horizon and Erasmus, and the importance of academic links and the mutuality of those links. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said about that mutuality, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in his plea for Erasmus and getting the discussion back on a real basis.
The Statement says that this is
“why we did not take the first deal that was offered to us”.
At the time, we asked what that deal was. What were the details of the deal? Why did we not get the information to allow us to make the judgment about whether the Government had taken the correct decision? It is all very well putting these things in a Statement but all that does is trigger really poor memories about the fact that an unreasonable decision was taken. An unreasonable decision was also taken about Erasmus. Turing is very much a scaled-down and second-rate scheme. For it to be named after a genius is just disgraceful.
I should like to ask also about the so-called new clawback scheme. The old Horizon deal was the best clawback scheme in the business. We got a heck of a lot more money than we put in. You do not get better than that, so will the Minister say what clawback scheme could possibly be better?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
First, as I was obliged to explain to the House at the time, I was unable to comment on ongoing negotiations for fear of prejudicing their outcome. The initial position of the EU was that we had to pay for the entirety of 2023, despite the fact that it was already March by the time this agreement was made, there were no mechanisms in the place for clawback, which I will come to in a moment, and it was all or nothing. I am pleased to say that thanks to the negotiations we have reached a deal that works for both sides.
On the clawback scheme, the preferred outcome is not to require a clawback. In common with every previous Horizon programme, we have gained more from the programme than we have put in, and we have every reason to believe that that will be the case, but there is always a risk that, because we are entering this particular Horizon programme late and many of the bids and activities will already have been allocated to different parties, we will not on this occasion be able to make as much money back for our institutions as we put in. In that instance, the clawback mechanism negotiated by our team mitigates that risk somewhat for any really significant disparity.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, without overegging the pudding, the whole point of Horizon is that there is international co-operation. There are issues with visas because we are going from the free movement of people to a visa-based system, so that is fundamental to how this works. However, my question is about Copernicus. We have not heard much today about that, so will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House where we are on that and how the deal reflects on that?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I will come back to the question of visas, and I take the point. I am pleased to say that we are also reassociating with Copernicus. It is such an important programme for the earth observation sector. Geospatial is in my portfolio as a Minister. I am a great believer in the value that it can bring. What particularly pleases and excites me about the association with Copernicus is access to the EU’s very comprehensive dataset that could help to kick-start our work and the work done in the EU. I am extremely positive about that.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for missing the opening sentences of his speech. By way of amends, I very much welcome this move. I know the Minister would agree with me that this is all about the exchange of ideas, which is crucial to development. Exactly the same argument could be made about the arts and musicians. The Minister said, very honestly, that lasting damage has been done as a result of this. I ask him to be good enough to take back to his colleagues that lasting damage is being done to music and the arts. Furthermore—this is the most extraordinary thing of all—the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who does not give way very easily, has admitted that the Government got these negotiations wrong. So, if the Government can put Horizon right, please will they put music, arts and touring right as well?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. I recognise the issue, and although my ability to fix that is pretty limited, I will of course take that back to my colleagues.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, a number of noble Lords have referred to the stress, pressure and extra work that the scientific community has had to suffer through the years of see-sawing and uncertainty about what is happening with Horizon. On 10 and 11 July, I was with ABX, the Antibiotic Discovery Accelerator Network. On 10 July, the papers were reporting that we were about to sign Horizon, which I told them. Then, on 11 July, I had to say, “No, apparently Rishi Sunak has kiboshed it, so it’s off”. Can the Minister therefore say whether the Government will put in extra resources and support to ensure that the scientific community is in fact able to access this opportunity, which has finally arrived after so many years of waiting?
I have a second question. The Statement refers to what might be described as two of the “buzz” areas of science: fusion, on which we are not joining the EU—I will refrain from commenting on fusion—and artificial intelligence. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government will really focus on and support systems biology, an area of science that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to—the kind of work that produces agro-ecological methods of producing food and managing our landscapes—and the modern, non-reductive biological sciences, given that the EU is, in many areas, far ahead of us in this research and this practice?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
To the noble Baroness’s first point, I am pleased to say that the EU has agreed jointly with us to help to publicise the new arrangements with the UK and our association and to make sure that all existing participants become rapidly aware of the opportunities for associating with UK institutions and working with us on programmes. I really welcome that as a positive step towards taking full advantage as quickly as possible. Engineering biology is one of the science and research priorities set out by DSIT and will indeed, therefore, remain very much part of our laser focus.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, as we have a few moments left, may I endorse all the comments made about the need to apply to the creative areas of music, dance and so on the same arguments that apply to Horizon Europe? I must also tell the Minister that during this exchange I have had a message from Cancer Research UK, which, as noble Lords may remember, has been very active in seeking to rejoin Horizon Europe, because it will make such a difference to the work done by these very important people in helping to solve one of the great diseases of our time.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I hope very much that Cancer Research UK, a body for which I have enormous respect, welcomes this news. I hope that the noble Viscount will pass on my very best wishes and that it is able to take full advantage of our new association.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I welcome this deal. despite the fact that it is very late and overblown. We are glad to have it. I was chair of Lancaster University for seven and a half years, and the Horizon programme was one driver of a great interchange of staff across the continent. Some 20% of our staff at Lancaster were EU citizens not from the UK. Does the Minister think that that degree of freedom of movement will still be allowed as a result of the reinstatement of Horizon?
Secondly, does the Minister accept that there is a real problem, as a result of Brexit, in the decline in students from EU countries? It makes our universities more dependent on recruiting students from potentially problematic parts of the world, such as China, with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, opposite.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I slightly struggle on the subject of who is or is not allowed to work in our universities as a result of this. I am not aware that anything has changed there, but I have committed to come back to many noble Lords on visas and health charges. On the noble Lord’s other question, there is a whole world of researchers out there and it is incumbent on us to recognise our circumstances as a nation and engage globally with as broad a population as possible, recognising that good scientists are good scientists, wherever they happen to come from.
Nuclear Energy
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Howell of Guildford
That this House takes note of the role of nuclear energy in securing the future energy supply.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an indirect interest in that Mitsubishi Electric, which I advise, while not directly connected to nuclear power station building, is involved in the new transmission system that will be necessary to convey power from new nuclear sites and, even more so, in delivering greatly enlarged offshore wind power transmission flows from the north Atlantic via new coastal stations and a much more powerful and intelligent grid than anything we have today. Without that, of course, we will make no progress at all.
Our national policy on nuclear power development is at a crossroads. Some would say that it is at a wide fork in the road. One route would mean pushing ahead with the mega-nuclear giant projects as now at Hinkley Point C in Somerset and as planned at the so-called replica, where a repeat is planned of Hinkley C, at Sizewell C in Suffolk. Experience tells us—it certainly tells me—that that will take 10 or 15 years to complete. We have been at this point many times in the past 30 or 40 years.
The other route is to recognise that those giants have had their day and that instead we should concentrate resources and skills on smaller modular reactors, designed at a time of revolution in nuclear power technology worldwide—and which, it is claimed, can be built much more quickly and sooner and are much more attractive to private investors for that very reason. That is a very important point, to which I shall return.
There are also those who deny that there is any actual choice at all, and we just have to press ahead on all possible tracks. That is the sort of argument which says that there is a pipeline of new projects to replace our nuclear fleet, which we have allowed to shrink so drastically. It is embodied in the philosophy expressed by the American comedian and baseball player, Yogi Berra, when he said:
“When you come to a fork in the road, take it”.
This “let’s do it all” approach is to be driven forward now by the new Great British Nuclear office, just opened and announced, as an essential part of our affordable, all-electric economy by 2050. The goal is unambiguous and clear: we must build up our nuclear capacity to 24 gigawatts from its present 13 or 14, which is about to fall to 5 or 6 in a year or two’s time. Ministers predict that to be a quarter of the electric power that we will need by 2050—in other words, about 100 gigawatts—as all, or nearly all, fossil fuels are replaced.
When one considers that electric power today—roughly 60 gigawatts, of which 50% to 70% comes from renewables when the wind is blowing—represents less than one-fifth of total energy use in the UK, 200 gigawatts may be much nearer the mark than 100 gigawatts. This even takes into account all the wider hydrogen use that is clearly coming, much greater efficiency in energy use, better insulation and more interconnectors with our neighbours to balance the supply grid, such as the one from Morocco being mooted. This could bring as much as 10 gigawatts of solar power into the British grid—a reminder that there is no such thing as a purely homegrown energy system, as some officials in our Department for Energy seem to think. They are quite wrong.
This leaves open a large number of questions about the nuclear role. First, I gather that the start button on Sizewell C may very shortly be pressed by the new Secretary of State. We welcome her and wish her well in her very difficult new job. Before this button is pressed, may we have some up-to-date assessments of likely capital costs and completion dates for this Sizewell replica? Is the plan to continue with six more such gigawatt-generating plants, as various Prime Ministers have called for in the last decade, or to make this the last and move on to a new, cheaper and possibly less risky smaller design for the next phase?
Secondly, has account been taken of the EPR—the European pressurised water reactor design family of reactors, as developed by Électricité de France for Finland, France and China, and now for the UK? It has a most unfortunate history in construction timing, costs and reliable operation. The EPR at Olkiluoto in Finland has taken 20 years to complete and is many billions over budget. At Flamanville on the Cherbourg peninsula—which I have visited—they are running 11 years late. It is still not ready and is also €10 billion over budget. There was a much-vaunted, allegedly successful EPR model in Taishan in China, but there too a reactor had to be closed down because of fuel rod problems. Our own first EPR, at Hinkley Point, was originally supposed to be powering our ovens for Christmas turkeys by 2019. Now the forecast is for 2027 and it could easily slide to 2029. It is already £8 billion over budget—in today’s money the figure is nearer £15 billion. France is said to be looking at a new, simpler design for further replacement of its ageing PWR fleet. They call it the EPR2 but it is different from and not a direct replica of what we are trying to build here. The other day, the former EDF chief told the French Assembly that the EPR is “too complicated, almost unbuildable”.
Then there is the central question of finance. The sums are eye-watering. The last estimate for Sizewell C—the only one we have at the moment—was £20 billion. From Hinkley and other previous experiences, we know it is bound to be much nearer £30 billion. The present hope is that a funding scheme which has already been used elsewhere can somehow be mobilised. It is called the regulated asset base, which in effect makes would-be consumers start paying their energy bills from the day the scheme is launched—years before a single kilowatt of electricity is produced. The Science and Technology Select Committee in the other place warned that this RAB system contained “significant uncertainties and downsides”. On the figures we have, the Government will still need to put in about £6 billion, over and above the £1 billion or so already publicly committed. We hope that Électricité de France may come up with the same amount. Some £100 million has already been set aside to buy out the Chinese interest in both Sizewell C and an all-new Chinese plant at Bradwell-on-Sea which was once promised as part of a deal with China in times gone past when relations were happier. We thought then that they should take a major role in our nuclear progress, which we do not think any longer.
Perhaps my noble friend would care to update these estimates and figures and tell us how matters are going with the Chinese, who of course remain financially heavily involved in Hinkley Point C. Can we have the latest view on the state of play there, please?
What of the other nuclear power way forward, the other branch in the road towards much smaller units and new technology? I do not accuse, and no one could accuse, the Government of neglecting interest in the SMR possibilities, but mere interest is not really the question. The question is whether smaller and newer reactors should be not just an interest but the absolute spearhead UK priority, as other countries are making it, or whether the giant EPR replica, which remains the centrepiece of British nuclear policy, continues to be there, as appears to be the situation. Japan, America, Russia, France, China, South Korea, Canada, Germany, Argentina, Australia and Finland are a few of the countries giving priority attention to these new designs.
Most of the SMR projects under way are geared to operational readiness in the early 2030s or before, using existing or disused nuclear sites for sets of four or six, producing green, low-carbon electric power on the same scale as the old big ones. Here, Great British Nuclear is running a competition that is said to favour three SMR types: GE Hitachi, with its boiling water BWRX-300 megawatt design, which it says will be completed—I am not sure what that word really means—by 2028; our own Rolls-Royce, with its years of marine nuclear engine experience, which has linked up with US NuScale and also has Japanese backers; and Holtec, which I think is the third favourite. All these are ready to deliver before the end of this decade.
There is one oddity here that I would greatly value the Minister’s comment on. What about firms that do not need taxpayers’ money and say they are already fully funded and ready to produce and sell into the British system? For example, I was visited the other day by a firm called Newcleo—I have no interest in or connection with it—which explained that it and several other similar firms have zero-waste small machines. They are zero waste because they use old plutonium waste from older reactors as their fuel, and could be ready by 2030. It has been excluded from the competition and is not getting any of the papers. Why? Matters seem to be very much upside down.
Is there not a major choice, after all, between smaller, sooner, around 2030, and larger, later, around 2036 to 2038 at best—and between mainly private finance and billions more from the state, which mostly means from taxpayers and hapless consumers who already face huge increases in their electricity bills? Should we not instead face the reality that smaller nuclear power plants, ready much sooner, offer far the best hope in our NZ ambitions, based on new technology, on streamlined approval procedures, which are certainly needed, and, above all, primarily on private finance? That is the key advantage and the sort of advantage that would bring in pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. With sets of SMRs built off-site and ferried in, this would also avoid all the local chaos and disruption of a prolonged 10 to 12-year construction site, not forgetting the long-term decommissioning problems and costs that these mammoths necessitate.
To me the priority is obvious. Further ahead, we know, lies fusion, but it will not be ready for 2050. Frankly, it is not on the nuclear mega-dreams of the past, which took decades to build and are still bulging with growing risks, that we will depend for our clean, reliable, low-carbon electricity supply. Size no longer wins in the digital age. This is an immense subject involving enormous sums of money, and there are those in this House with far more expertise than I about many of its different aspects. My own view, putting all these aspects together, is based simply on 40 years or more of experience in grappling with the nuclear power issue. We now have the chance, for once, to get it right and be a little ahead of the curve. I beg to move.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for introducing today’s debate on this very important subject. I am in no doubt that provision of a base electrical load using nuclear power is crucial for our nation, not least because of the vast increase in electrical requirement as the next decades unfold, as has been mentioned. I do not think the general public realise how huge that increase in demand will become.
Nuclear power is at present the only guaranteed carbon-neutral power source that can operate day and night, whatever the weather. I think everyone is aware of that, but it is important to remind ourselves. Perhaps in the future tidal might be a similar thing and able to do that, but it has not been working well and still has a long way to go. Concern is often rightly expressed about disposal of the small amounts of radioactive waste produced by power stations. Suffice it to say that work continues on the issue of disposal of the small amounts of nuclear waste using the geological disposal facility. As I understand it, it is progressing but needs to be hastened. I ask the Minister to give us an update of where we have got to on ensuring that disposal capability.
The provision of a secure baseload of green electricity is of national importance. The work to achieve it should be seen as such, and in a similar way to the national deterrent programme—the continuous at-sea deterrence—it should become a national endeavour involving all departments of state, because they all have some interest in it. Looking at these future issues, expenditure on nuclear power seems far more important than something like HS2, for example, and the Government need to bite the bullet and expedite work on it.
How our nation, which at one stage led the world in civil nuclear power, is now reliant on Chinese, Japanese, French and American expertise is a national disgrace. I will not go into that now, but it is appalling when you think that we led the world. This needs to be turned around and we need to generate the scientists, engineers and designers to ensure that we are never again in this position.
As regards large power stations, I do not completely see eye to eye with the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I believe we need three—Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and probably Bradwell B—online as quickly as humanly possible. It is all very well to say they take a long time. Yes, they do, but for the last 30 years we have been saying that; if we had done something then, we would have them operating now, so we should move ahead with those. However—and this is where I have to take a new line, down the middle—we should also embark on a major programme of small modular reactors.
One of the benefits of large power stations is that the national grid power line infrastructure is already in place on these sites. This is not the case with new offshore wind farms and other energy options. Other things we need to look at, but not as urgently as the small modular reactors, are the advanced modular reactors that can produce hydrogen and so on. There is considerable scope there for the future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, Rolls-Royce has been producing nuclear reactors for Royal Navy submarines since the late 1950s when the first one was built. That expertise is highly relevant to production of SMRs. It would be extremely unfortunate, in terms of resilience, for those used in this country to be designed and built overseas, not least because of the whole issue of having scientists, engineers and people capable of doing all these things. To see it going to someone other than Rolls-Royce would be extraordinary. As an aside, people talk about fusion; although this is attractive, I think it is a very long way off.
The complications of having Chinese involvement in what is a crucial part of our critical national infrastructure has to be unravelled. It should never have got to the position it is in, and no doubt there will be huge problems, particularly as regards Bradwell B power station, which I believe may have to be of a completely different design in future.
With the right leadership, political direction and public/private partnership, there is still just time to provide the civil nuclear power our nation needs. There just needs to be the absolute focus to achieve that. If noble Lords think back, we did a similar thing when we opened up North Sea oil and gas in the late 1970s and 1980s; think of the huge national benefit that came out of that. I believe there is no time for delay.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on raising this debate, and on the penetrating way in which he introduced it. I declare my interest as a project director working for Atkins in the nuclear industry. I am also a co-chair of Legislators for Nuclear and chair of Midlands Nuclear. The Sizewell B nuclear plant, which the noble Lord secured when he was Energy Secretary, has now been operating for almost 30 years. In the industry we are now working on a potential life extension to 2055, which will take the life of the plant up to 60 years. This really shows what an incredible asset nuclear reactors are for the country.
We have seen great progress with policy in recent years, with the 24 gigawatt commitment from the Government and the formation of GBN. We are now into the really difficult part: delivery. There is still ferocious debate about the future energy system and the right mix of technologies to best balance the energy trilemma of security, sustainability and economy, with the economics of nuclear coming under particular focus. What is really needed to start with is a more sensible discourse around costs. Across the media and in debates here and in another place, we regularly see the view put across that renewables are cheap and everything else is expensive, which is somewhat simplistic.
Perhaps one way of cutting through this debate is a simple thought experiment, where we have a grid that is reliant solely on renewables for generation—which is certainly technically feasible. Those renewables may be cheap in terms of cost at the generator, but how do we manage intermittency? The consensus of studies done to date points towards the necessity of long-duration energy storage: probably hydrogen stored in salt caverns if we are going for a low-carbon option. The scale of that storage requirement would be absolutely enormous—up to 100 terawatt hours. To put that into perspective, the amount of energy that would have to be stored is considerably more than that released by the largest thermonuclear weapon exploded to date. The engineering challenges and technical risk in constructing such a system, using technology that has not yet been demonstrated at scale, would be extremely challenging. The cost per megawatt hour of that system would be far more than the levelised cost of electricity figures we routinely see quoted for renewable electricity.
So the picture is much more complex than simply comparing costs at the generator. We live in a radically uncertain world and we cannot rely on modelling estimates of the costs of unproven technologies. We should be pursuing a broad range of proven technologies, including nuclear and renewables, rather than putting all our eggs in one basket. Critically, we should focus on system costs rather than costs at the generator. I hope that is something we can all agree on.
Continuing the trilemma theme, energy security is critical here. We are well positioned in the UK in that we have the expertise and facilities for the complete nuclear fuel cycle following the importation of uranium: conversion, enrichment and fabrication of the fuel itself. However, we know that Russia dominates aspects of this cycle. For example, it has around 45% of global enrichment capacity. To ensure that fuel supplies are secure, drawing on lessons from the war in Ukraine, the Government should consider legislating to mandate that all fuel used in the UK is from western sources within a defined time period. Could the Minister say in his summing-up what consideration the Government have given to legislating in the area of our nuclear fuel supply?
I also hope we can also move to start seeing the stock of plutonium at Sellafield as an asset rather than a liability. There is an intriguing possibility here, in addition to recycling that store into nuclear fuel. Within that stockpile are tonne quantities of an isotope called americium 241, which could be used as a fuel source for nuclear batteries of the type that power the Mars Curiosity rover and the Voyager probe. To date, these have been fuelled with an isotope of plutonium that is extremely costly to manufacture and made only in the United States and Russia.
Americium-powered nuclear batteries could open up a whole new industry in the UK and create thousands of jobs. The National Nuclear Laboratory is currently planning a facility to extract kilogram quantities per year, but a strategy from the Government is required on how we seize the economic opportunity here. And it is not just the economic opportunity; it demonstrates the wider value that nuclear brings beyond power generation into things such as medical isotopes, and we need to get the public on board. Can the Minister say what plans there are to progress with a strategy for seizing this unique opportunity for the UK?
On how we actually deliver nuclear, I will say something about our supply chain development. Rightly, there has been a lot of focus recently on our skills base in delivering the aspirations of the Government, but that needs to be matched by investment in our supply chain. The successful Fit For Nuclear programme, run by the Nuclear AMRC, which is part of the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, provides a good starting point. Since 2013 the programme and its predecessor have helped UK companies win over £2.5 billion of new contracts, has created or safeguarded over 9,700 jobs, and has secured almost £100 million in private sector investment. It is important that we build on that and put in place the funding to address bottlenecks, invest in shared testing and demonstration facilities and develop the tools needed to provide the integrated supply chain planning capability that we need as a country to support nuclear new build. If we fail to do that, the opportunity to deliver long-term UK economic benefit will be lost; we risk driving up costs and exposing ourselves to global markets and international supply chains. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will urgently provide the funding needed to support the development of a UK nuclear supply chain capability and seize the resulting opportunities for UK industry?
Finally, I will speak briefly about planning. There is a real need to increase the speed of nuclear projects going through the planning system, particularly if we are to increase radically the speed of delivery of nuclear. For example, the environmental statement for Hinkley Point C ran to 31,000 pages, and that for Sizewell C to 44,000 pages. Those are just two examples, but, clearly, we will not deliver new nuclear quickly if we do not have some fundamental reforms to the planning system and how large net-zero projects are progressed. That is something I am looking at for smaller projects within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing about reforms to the planning system for large nuclear?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, many of whose comments I thoroughly endorse. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Howell for securing this timely and important debate and for introducing it in his usual thoughtful and well-informed way. I draw attention to my interests in the register, notably my role as an independent consultant to Terrestrial Energy, a Canadian technology firm developing advanced nuclear technologies. I, too, am a member of Legislators for Nuclear.
It has been frustrating to read the recent extensive criticism of the Government’s work to cut emissions to reach our net-zero targets. The expressed view that commitment to our green policies is waning is a false narrative. In all the media chatter about green levies on energy bills, heat pumps and targets on zero-emission vehicles, many seem to have forgotten that one technology in particular will do most of the heavy lifting—the one the Government can now be seen to be standing behind fully and completely, namely nuclear power.
The recent establishment of Great British Nuclear is a critical start on this pathway; it will be instrumental in both meeting our net-zero targets and reducing our dependence on energy imports. It also heralds a strong commitment to establish a supply chain that can be exported worldwide—and doing so in areas of the UK that desperately need levelling up: for example, north-west Wales. To continue the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, save for the lack of a robust uranium supply chain, the UK could be completely self-sufficient throughout the nuclear lifecycle.
On nuclear fuels, the UK has manufactured fuels for reactors for decades, ensuring the long-term operation of our current fleet. Urenco and Westinghouse are now investing in new skills and infrastructure to manufacture a range of higher-enriched fuels for a future reactor fleet at Capenhurst and Springfields in the north-west, and the National Nuclear Laboratory continues to develop advanced fuels to support our future reactor fleets.
The recent announcement that the Government are planning to award funding as part of the nuclear fuel fund for advanced nuclear fuel processing facilities is welcome. We may soon be able to regard that store of nuclear waste at Sellafield as an asset—a potential fuel source for some of the newer Generation IV nuclear technologies, as well as batteries. Projections suggest that, by 2050, around half of our final energy use will be from electricity. This itself represents a fourfold increase in production compared to today, which is why the Government have set such ambitious and ground-breaking targets for nuclear, but I question whether it is enough.
A secure future electricity supply is only part of the story. While nuclear power can be a major source of reliable baseload low-carbon power for an electrified future, it can also be a low-carbon energy source to assist with hydrogen production for use in many sectors, particularly those where decarbonisation is required but where it is difficult to do so because of the lack of alternatives to fossil fuels. Sectors such as aviation and shipping, and industries such as steel-making and agriculture, drive our economy, and their successful decarbonisation is not only fundamental to our continued economic success but, unless we are successful in doing it, we will fail to meet our legal obligation to achieve net zero by 2050.
Just as in electricity production, nuclear-generated industrial heat can play a pivotal role in the production of a whole range of other energy products, including sustainable aviation fuel, hydrogen and ammonia, and in the UK we are making this possible. When we talk about ensuring a secure energy supply, we need also to be thinking about low-carbon fuels which, when produced by nuclear heat and electricity, can enable us to continue our increasingly energy-intensive lives in a future-proofed and sustainable way. Some of these fuels are also direct replacements for current carbon-intensive versions, requiring little or no costly and time-consuming infrastructure upgrades.
Under this Government, nuclear has been included right across the board to support decarbonisation in many hard to abate sectors. This includes the publications we have all seen such as the hydrogen strategy, the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, the net-zero innovation framework, and the heat and buildings strategy—the list goes on. All include consideration of the viable role that nuclear can play in achieving net zero across all areas of our energy system, far beyond electricity.
Nuclear energy can provide the direct-process heat to decarbonise our industrial clusters, responsible for 16% of our greenhouse gas emissions—that is, if we can also unlock opportunities for siting small modular reactors close to those clusters. That is where the planning situation has to be considered. The heat from nuclear reactors can deliver low-carbon fuels, such as sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation is one sector that is extremely difficult to decarbonise. However, with nuclear energy as the primary energy source, the UK can produce mass-scale sustainable aviation fuel—SAF—for net-zero flights. Current engines can already run on SAF-mixed fuels; our challenge is to make enough to decarbonise the aviation industry.
The Department for Transport recognises that nuclear energy produces a particular type of SAF, known as power-to-liquid, which combines water and air through a chemical process to produce aviation fuel. This is predicted to fuel up to 45% of all aviation by 2050, yet today the amount we produce is next to zero. The opportunity for the UK to capitalise on this market through the application of nuclear energy is immense. If we start now, this can be a reality as early as 2035, raising the ceiling on SAF production, delivering on government SAF targets, creating well-paid UK clean energy jobs, driving exports and positioning the UK as a world leader.
Nuclear technology can also decarbonise other methods of transport and industry by producing hydrogen. Hydrogen is often touted as the golden solution to our climate change problems; it is probably the most talked about solution beyond electrification. Not in itself a source of energy, like electricity it needs to be manufactured through a production process driven by energy, and we need huge amounts of it. Every day in the news we see progress made in the decarbonisation of sectors by developing point-of-use technologies, hydrogen buses, trains, cars and so on. However, to achieve all this requires the production of staggering amounts of hydrogen—far more than renewables and electrolysis alone can provide. The Climate Change Committee said that to achieve net zero we need 270 terawatt hours of hydrogen by 2050. That is the equivalent of creating within 30 years a hydrogen economy the same size as the total amount of electricity we use today on the grid.
While we have made strides in nuclear’s future for our electricity system, it has a role far beyond electricity. The role of nuclear energy to decarbonise the other 50% of our future energy system is real—delivering large-capacity heat and electricity from a land-area footprint with orders of magnitude smaller than wind and solar. We need to make the UK the best place in the world to invest in commercial projects that leverage nuclear energy for system-wide decarbonisation, driving economic development and supporting levelling up the whole of the UK. Above all, in my opinion, we need to back all forms of nuclear technology, from fusion to fission, from gigawatt to micro, and from SMR to AMR, That probably puts me in the same camp as the baseball player of the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord West, is correct: there has been a very real worry globally about the lack of engineers, scientists and skilled workers necessary to keep the industry operating and properly regulated. The announcement in July of the creation of a Nuclear Skills Taskforce underlines the strategic approach the Government are pursuing in creating the next stage of our nuclear story. It will set up the industry for success and prosperity, making sure that our nation’s ambitions for nuclear can power up Britain and our energy security for decades to come, helping us to achieve net zero by 2050, and beyond.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
Britain is experiencing an energy crisis. Despite its commitment to staunch the emissions of carbon dioxide, it remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels to power its industries and, more significantly, to power its transport and its electricity generation. The electricity generation is increasingly dependent on renewable sources of wind and solar energy. These sources are intermittent and require to be supplemented by other means of generating electricity which depend, mainly, on gas purchased on the international markets at prices that are subject to extreme fluctuations. We would not be in our present position of vulnerability to international markets if we had maintained our nuclear industry.
At the beginning of the Cameron-Clegg coalition Government in 2010, it was proposed that contracts should be offered for building eight new nuclear power stations. Whereas the existing nuclear power stations had been financed by central government, it was decided, in accordance with the philosophy of the Conservative Party, that the new power stations should be financed by private capital. It would be tedious to recount the history of the repeated failures of the Government’s nuclear policy. Over the succeeding 13 years, only one semi-nationalised enterprise, EDF, has undertaken to build a nuclear power station in Britain.
Politicians appear to have woken up, belatedly, to the crisis in our energy supply. A body called Great British Nuclear—GBN—has been established, which will be charged with overseeing the revival of our nuclear power industry. Its first activity will be to oversee a competition in which the favoured design of a small modular reactor—an SMR—will be chosen. This process is shrouded in secrecy, which inhibits a rational discussion of the options. It looks as if there will be a three-horse race, in which the competitors will be Rolls-Royce, GE Hitachi and X-energy, which are one British enterprise and two American enterprises.
It is galling to recall that Britain was the first nation to establish a civil nuclear industry. The world’s first civil nuclear power station was opened at Calder Hall, in Cumbria, in 1956. The domestic and geopolitical circumstances at that time determined the nuclear technologies that have prevailed to this day. A covert purpose of the nuclear industry was to manufacture the plutonium that would be deployed in nuclear weapons. The first two reactors that were erected at Windscale, adjacent to Calder Hall, were devoted entirely to this purpose. The Calder Hall reactor, which was a gas-cooled Magnox reactor, was entirely devoted to the civil purpose of electricity power generation. Britain continued to pursue technological advances in this area. This led to the advanced gas-cooled reactors which power all but one of Britain’s nuclear power stations. It also gave rise to a so-called pebble bed gas-cooled reactor, the Dragon reactor, in Winfrith, in Dorset, which operated from 1965 to 1976. Another experimental reactor was the sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor at Dounreay, which was capable of consuming the excess stocks of plutonium.
There were other developments in the United States. A leading proposal for a civil nuclear reactor was a thorium molten salt reactor that was advocated by Alvin Weinberg, of which a prototype was realised at the Oak Ridge laboratory. Weinberg encountered fierce opposition from Admiral Hyman Rickover, who was in charge of the American nuclear fleet. Rickover favoured a pressurised water reactor for submarines. The consequence was that such reactors have come to dominate both in civil nuclear power stations and in military applications in submarines and aircraft carriers.
The pressurised water reactor was favoured for submarine propulsion because it appeared to be light and compact. An irony is that, in its civil applications, it has spawned massive nuclear power stations that are burdened with safety devices designed to overcome the dangers of a pressurised nuclear meltdown, of the sort that we witnessed at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
This account of the available nuclear technology provides a backdrop to the British competition for a design of a small modular reactor. Rolls-Royce should be a front-runner in view of its experience with pressurised water reactor technology and in view of the fact it is a British enterprise. Its reactor would generate 470 megawatts. This exceeds the 300 megawatts which is the conventional limit of a small modular reactor. GE Hitachi is offering the tried and tested technology of a pressurised water reactor, packaged as an SMR and rated at 300 megawatts. This amounts to a small power station. Perhaps one would be more excited if GE Hitachi were to offer its fast sodium-cooled PRISM reactor, which would be capable of burning the plutonium of which there is an abundant stock at Sellafield. X-energy is proposing a pebble-bed reactor that is cooled by helium and which weighs in at 80 megawatts. It looks complicated. Among the complications are, first, the manufacture of the fuel pebbles; secondly, the deployment of the helium coolant; and, thirdly, a mechanism for the active control of the reaction. If this reactor were to be favoured, Britain would be importing from the United States a technology that it already pioneered in the 1960s via the Dragon reactor.
Other options are available to us which we are in danger of overlooking. Foremost of these is a British design for a molten-salt reactor, described as the MoltexFLEX reactor. This reactor has an inner core in the form of a collection of fuel rods that contain a salt-uranium reagent. Its cooling circuit, which transfers the power to a heat exchanger, also contains molten salt at a temperature of 750 degrees centigrade. The outer cooling circuit is powered solely by convection, with an absence of valves or pumps. The reactor is inherently safe. If, for some unimaginable reason, the reactor were to rupture, the escaping salt would quickly crystallise at a temperature of 550 degrees centigrade. A single MoltexFLEX reactor would produce 40 megawatts of energy; and it could be deployed on its own in an industrial application, which might use its heat, or a combination of heat and electricity generated by steam, using turbines. An electrical power station might contain a battery of 32 such reactors.
The MoltexFLEX prototype could be up and running before 2030. Therefore, it seems unaccountable to me that it has not also been considered as a front-runner. I have difficulty in understanding this. I presume that, in the minds of the civil servants, the advantage of the X-energy reactor, with which the MoltexFLEX might be compared, is that it is receiving funding from the United States Department of Defense and from the Department of Energy. Also, if the X-energy reactor were to be adopted in the UK there would be some inward financial investment, but these are insufficient reasons for failing to sponsor a native design; yet I believe that they are typical of the thinking of the Civil Service and of the Government.
Three distinct purposes could be served by the various designs of nuclear reactors. First, we need nuclear power stations that contribute electricity to the grid. Various reactors are on offer for this role, which are mainly pressurised water reactors. At one end of a spectrum are the EPR reactors, rated at 4,500 megawatts thermal power, which are to be deployed in the mega power stations of Hinkley C and Sizewell C. At the other end of the spectrum are the small modular reactors of Rolls-Royce and GE-Hitachi. We should persist with Hinkley C and Sizewell C: but they should be succeeded by a fleet of SMRs from Rolls-Royce, which could be distributed widely throughout the country.
Secondly, there is the need for a much smaller reactor for powering industrial processes. The MoltexFLEX reactor should be chosen on the grounds of its simplicity and robustness.
Thirdly, there are fast reactors that are capable of burning the stocks of plutonium and of consuming other kinds of nuclear waste. The GE Hitachi PRISM reactor, which is finding favour in the USA, could be an appropriate choice.
I must ask the Minister to reveal the Government’s appraisal of these opportunities and I seek an assurance that they will take steps vigorously to support our native endeavours, which include the Rolls-Royce SMR and the MoltexFLEX reactor.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the week before last I was speaking at the B20 in Delhi and today our Prime Minister is flying out to attend the G20 in Delhi. I was president of the Confederation of British Industry from June 2020 to June 2022, during which time I was privileged to chair the B7 when Britain hosted the G7. During my presidency I spoke to a leader in the nuclear industry about small modular reactors. He said in no uncertain terms that these reactors can be built within five years—and we have not even started building one.
An energy transition will take place over the coming years, moving from oil and gas to solar, hydrogen, wind—and nuclear, which will play a major part. The Government have very clearly outlined their ambitions to significantly increase nuclear power capacity, also saying that it is one of the most reliable technologies available to provide a baseload level of low-carbon electricity on a giant scale. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for initiating this debate on the role of nuclear energy in securing the future energy supply. It is crucial at this time.
However, the reality is that in the 1990s nuclear’s share of our electricity supply in this country was almost 25% and today we are down to under 14%. It has almost halved in that period. The House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee said that the contribution of nuclear to the UK’s energy mix will
“fall substantially by 2028, when all plants bar Sizewell B are scheduled to come to the end of their lives”.
We know that we must achieve net zero by 2050. Delivering new and advanced nuclear power was one of the 10 points in the Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. The Government published its British Energy Security Strategy for how Britain will accelerate homegrown power for greater energy independence, exacerbated and necessitated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The strategy described nuclear energy as
“the only form of reliable, low carbon electricity generation which has been proven at scale … a big enough baseload of reliable power for our island”.
The strategy set a target to generate 24 gigawatts of power by 2050, which is three times what we have and 25% of our projected electricity demand. So we are going to get to where we were in the 1990s. I think that we would want to get further than that.
Of course, we now have Great British Nuclear, officially launched in July this year. Grant Shapps, at that time Energy Secretary and now of course Defence Secretary, said when he launched it that
“we are seeing the first brushstrokes of our nuclear power renaissance to power up Britain and grow our economy for decades to come”.
We talk about SMRs and say that we want to build them, but would the Minister acknowledge that a company such as Rolls-Royce wants to build SMRs around the world, yet I am told that many countries will not even allow it to tender unless it builds something in its own country, the UK. So, if the Government give Rolls-Royce the chance to set up a plant here quickly, that will enable it to export around the world. Rolls-Royce is, of course, one of Britain’s great exporters. These SMRs can generate electric power up to 300 megawatts, compared with up to 1,400 megawatts for the giant plants, and they can be built very quickly.
However, in an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Shapps said that he did not expect SMRs to be online and producing energy until the 2030s. That is seven years from now, when an expert told me that we can build them in five years. Why are we not moving on this with much greater urgency?
My old university contemporary and friend at Cambridge, the former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark, said that, in the committee he chairs, “witness after witness” who appeared before the committee’s inquiry highlighted the lack of a strategic plan for nuclear. He said that
“the government’s stated aim to deploy a nuclear reactor a year is not grounded in any explanatory detail’.
He added that it was unclear whether the 24-gigawatt target was intended to be met by gigawatt-scale, massive plants such as Hinkley Point C, or smaller, more distributed nuclear reactors such as SMRS. Could the Minister please confirm this? SMRs are quicker and cheaper to build, and you can build them right near the source where they will be supplying power.
The good news is that the Labour Party has expressed support for nuclear power: Keir Starmer has described it as
“a critical part of the UK’s energy mix”,
and the party has said that if it were in government, it would get new nuclear projects such as Hinkley and Sizewell over the line, extending the lifetime of existing plants, and would back new nuclear, including small modular reactors.
In the FT recently, just a week ago, Gillian Tett wrote an excellent article on nuclear power and the array of different companies we are competing with around the world, including Hitachi and GE. A race is taking place, and we need a sense of urgency. US President Joe Biden will be arriving at the G20 summit in Delhi and is very keen to partner with India on SMRs: specifically, the US wants to set up six nuclear reactors in India. Why are we not competing for those as well and doing business with India? Everyone wants to do business with India: it will be the third-largest economy in the world very soon and, in my view, the largest economy in the world by 2060.
The IAEA has also highlighted that African countries are looking to have SMRs built over there, which is another huge export opportunity for us. The small modular reactor market was valued at £3.5 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach almost £20 billion by 2030. This is an enormous opportunity for British business. We should be going at this at speed and with urgency. I am a stuck record in this Chamber. I keep asking: why are we not showing more urgency towards this, and why is our plan not clearer? Julia Pyke, joint managing director of Sizewell C, said that, if Hinkley had been on last year, UK consumers would have saved over £4 billion. Both projects will form a vital part of the future nuclear field, helping to lower carbon emissions and reduce costs.
The Government are investing, and I applaud that. Some 90% of our homes are heated by fossil fuels. By making our homes more fuel efficient, again we will be able to save so much. This will create many more jobs—tens of thousands more. Are we skilling people enough to be able to deal with this transition?
I conclude with this: if we go to plan and show a real sense of urgency, I believe we can reach that 25% of our power and 24 gigawatts much sooner than 2050.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for introducing this most timely debate on nuclear energy. I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK and as a consultant to Japan Bank for International Cooperation, which is a shareholder in NuScale Power LLC.
I strongly agree with everything my noble friend said in his comprehensive and inspiring introductory speech. It could have been so different, as is so powerfully brought home by the useful 8th report from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee of another place on delivering nuclear power. From 1955 until 1995, government policy strongly favoured the construction of nuclear power stations: 10 Magnox and seven advanced gas-cooled reactor plants, and one pressurised water reactor plant at Sizewell B, were built. However, only one new reactor has been approved in last 28 years: the 3.2 gigawatt plant at Hinkley Point C.
Today, nuclear power contributes roughly 15% of our electricity needs. That is expected to fall substantially before Hinkley Point C comes online, and the impending retirement of all our other nuclear power stations except Sizewell B means that, even then, the contribution of nuclear power to electricity generation will remain below current levels. I ask the Minister, why do the Government not recognise the need to increase substantially their plans for creating new nuclear capacity in this country beyond their current policy?
It is welcome that the energy security strategy, published in April last year, aims to achieve 24 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050. However, the Government’s net-zero obligations will require an enormous increase in electricity generation as consumers are forced to purchase electric cars and replace their oil and gas-fired heating systems with heat pumps. Whereas today electricity accounts for around 20% of total energy consumption, that is forecast to rise to 40% to 50% by 2050. The Government believe that renewable energy can provide the bulk of this. They speak of nuclear as playing an important back-up role in providing firm baseload power when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Unfortunately, that is for much of the time.
The briefing paper produced by the Library contains many useful and relevant facts. However, I believe it is misleading in its contention that the share of electricity generation provided by renewable energy has increased from 3% in 2000 to 42% in 2022. I understand that the 42% figure was maintained for around half an hour on one day in June 2022. Last Thursday, I understand that the contribution from wind was just 4.6%, which illustrates the unpredictable contribution of wind to electricity supply. Furthermore, the use of renewables is also inflated by the fact that they receive grid priority, meaning that the grid will always take electricity from renewable sources ahead of that available from other sources. This distorts the comparative costs, which are already significantly distorted by renewables subsidies and the cost of linking wind and solar facilities to the grid. The intermittency of wind and solar energy illustrates all to clearly the lack of storage facilities for all kinds of energy, and there is no capacity for long-term electricity storage.
The Government acknowledge that intermittent renewable energy requires firm baseload back-up such as nuclear and gas can provide, so why do we not install much more nuclear capacity, which does not have such a need for back-up? We would not need to make over so many thousands of acres to unpopular wind and solar farms, nor ruin Constable’s beautiful Suffolk landscapes and other areas of outstanding natural beauty with even bigger electric pylons and power lines. It is unclear how the Government are going to realise their present target of 24 gigawatts and whether their ambition of one new reactor every year means a 1.6 gigawatt European pressurised reactor—such as the pair being built by EDF at Hinkley Point—or a 3.5 megawatt reactor by the Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, which has taken over the U-battery project formerly pursued by Urenco.
It is unclear what powers will be available to Great British Nuclear, and what its remit will be, beyond running an SMR competition which is under way. This competition excludes high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technologies, as the UK and the UK alone classifies these as AMRs—advanced modular reactors—with which it brackets all other new technologies that are not light-water reactors, even though they are as ready for commercial development now as any of the technologies now undergoing the SMR competition.
Does the Minister accept that electricity is only part of the problem? There is little chance of achieving net zero without significant decarbonisation of industry; particularly heat required for chemical processes, paper, steel and glass, for example. Several AMRs can provide green industrial-grade heat, as well as power. For example, Japan’s HTGR technology, which JAEA showcased for commercial development at the IAEA conference in Vienna in 2019, is arguably the most flexible and best potential source of industrial heat, energy and hydrogen. The NLL is now working with JAEA on developing a demonstrator by the early 2030s. This could be an exciting new Japanese-British project and would mitigate the disappointment resulting from the collapse of the two other bilateral projects: Hitachi’s Horizon project at Wylfa and Toshiba’s NuGen project at Sellafield Moorside.
However, unless plans and ambitions for this technology, which was originally developed by the UKAEA in Winfrith, Dorset, in 1965, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, are rapidly and radically developed from the present modest R&D project with the National Nuclear Laboratory, all the available nuclear sites will have gone and we will have missed the opportunity to be Japan’s partner for the rollout in the EMEA region of this extremely versatile and potentially cheap and efficient technology. We need a public-private joint venture consortium to develop this, in short order.
As a first step to try to keep open this exciting possibility, will the Minister discuss with the new Secretary of State whether she will, without delay, ask GBN to start comparing and assessing the leading HTGR technologies against the companies already in the SMR competition? There is no reason for them to be artificially held back and confined to the limited objectives of the AMR competition. The noble Viscount also spoke about the interesting MoltexFLEX reactor, which deserves more attention.
Lastly, I would like to hear the Minister’s comment on the total absence of a level playing field between UK-based applicants to the ONR going through the GDA process and their US competitors. American nuclear consortia are at a huge advantage to their British competitors because the US Government are much more generous, with an element of state funding. Neither does this help for rebuilding a UK skills base.
I apologise for going over my time and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, I feel that I need to begin by defending the House of Lords Library and its briefing. Noble Lords might wish to follow the link provided in that briefing to the source of the figure of 42% of electricity generated from renewables in 2022, which links to BEIS’s Energy Trends: UK Electricity ET5.1 document, which shows clearly that that is the annual figure.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this debate and agree with many of the concerns he expressed about our current nuclear programme, its costs, its delays and the many problems with it. The House of Lords Library briefing looks at how we have seen a significant decline since the 1990s, when 24.5% of electricity came from nuclear. That is down to about 14% now. This is a dinosaur technology that was tried out in the 20th century, has proved to be a failure and is on the decline.
Our energy future very clearly is in renewables and, to use a phrase I do not believe I have heard mentioned today, energy conservation. The cleanest, greenest, best possible energy we can have is the energy we do not need to use. We need to look forward to a future of social innovation and innovation in the way we operate our societies that demands less energy, which will leave all of us better off in the pocket and in terms of the environment in which we live.
I referred to the decline of this dinosaur of the 20th century, but we are still very much bearing the costs. One of the first costs to look at in the UK context is the fact that the current estimate for clearing up the mess left by the industry from the last century is £260 billion, and that figure just keeps going up and up. We have referred a great deal to the problem of skill shortages in the nuclear sector. We have a huge problem with the shortage of skills for that clean-up, which is where a great deal of expertise naturally needs to be delivered.
It is also interesting that this debate was secured at the point where there is great controversy about what is happening at this moment in Fukushima, in Japan, where wastewater is being released from the destroyed nuclear plant. The figures are truly mind-boggling: there are currently 463 million gallons of contaminated water being held on that site, and they are collecting more contaminated water—26,000 gallons a day. One of the big concerns is the impact on the Japanese fishing industry, just one of the many ways in which nuclear has been a blight for many of the communities in which it has been sited.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the costs. There are many figures I could cite but France is often seen as a nuclear leader: Flamanville 3 cost €12.7 billion, a cost that more than quadrupled from the original quote in 2004. Something else that has not come up is the geopolitical cost. Many noble Lords will be aware of the recent coup in Niger. Niger supplies 15% of France’s uranium, and a fifth of the EU’s uranium stock comes from Niger. Uranium mining there was undoubtedly a political factor in instability. This is a real problem area.
To come back to the UK, an issue with Sizewell B is that the fuel comes from Russia, as does a great deal of EU fuel, with the obvious issues that I do not need to raise. Namibia is another potential source, but it reflects many of the same problems that are relevant to Niger. If we look to Australia—somewhere else that is often cited—we see that Rio Tinto, a mining company with a very dubious history, has recently been forced to fork out a significant amount of the cost of 750 million Australian dollars for the rehabilitation of the Ranger uranium mine, which sits right in the middle of the Kakadu National Park and has been of great concern to the aboriginal inhabitants of the area as to the impacts. So we really have a situation where this is a dinosaur of the past.
I will pick up a couple of points raised by others in the debate. The word “baseload” keeps popping up. I will go to a quote that I go to often. In 2015, Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, said:
“The idea of large power stations for baseload is outdated”.
We are looking to a new, flexible, functional electricity system that works with what is available. It is a different kind of model—a model in which nuclear is a huge problem due to the lack of resilience and flexibility, as well as the lack of reliability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, talked about the land that might be required for solar and wind. Of course, if we put solar panels on our roofs, that is not taking up any extra land at all, and we should see a Britain with roofs covered with solar panels. We would love to take up some land for onshore wind—the cheapest source of electricity available to us—if the Government would actually allow that to go ahead, as so many people from so many parts of the sector are pushing for.
We need to look at some of the Government’s actual models and the way they have been looking at this issue. The current power sector model—the dynamic dispatch model, which is used to justify current policy decisions—cannot model long-duration storage and is being replaced. I have already talked about how it is difficult and inflexible; that is the practical reality. EDF has suggested that Sizewell C EPR reactors could load follow and is exploring the option, but that has never been done before in the UK.
I come to one final main point—as far as I am concerned, this is the absolute killer argument against any new nuclear. If we look at the history of Flamanville and other recent builds of nuclear reactors, we see not only that the costs have exploded but that the construction time has gone on and on. Then we have the issues of reliability.
The fact is that we are in a climate emergency. Renewables are there now. All those roofs are sitting there ready to have solar panels put on them. We need to act fast and now with proven technologies. Nuclear has been a continual disaster. It has been continually unreliable. We need an energy future based on renewables and energy conservation.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot compete with many of the speakers in this debate in their degree of expertise and knowledge on this subject. It has been more like an adult education seminar than a political debate, except perhaps for the last contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which was typically robust and in her own style.
I come to this as a natural supporter of nuclear power, in the first instance, and as a Cumbrian, which I think puts me in a unique position on this issue. I was a natural supporter of nuclear power from what my mother told me when I sat on her knee. She was brought up in a pit village in west Cumberland and her view was that nuclear was wonderful because it meant that people like my father would not have to go down the pit working a 2.5-foot seam in very dangerous conditions and that this would supply us with the power that we need without that dreadful human cost. I took that on board, and I think there are still a lot of people who think like that.
As several noble Lords have pointed out, west Cumberland is the birthplace, as it were, of the British nuclear industry. It is where Windscale and Calder Hall were located. I even remember that when I was at school, there was an accident and we were all told we could not drink school milk for many weeks—which as a child I was very puzzled by—because of the proximity to the activities there. West Cumberland is still the centre of British nuclear skills. All the skills involved in the clean-up at Sellafield are very important. My regret is that we have never managed to internationalise, for instance, the robotics which have been developed to deal with the nuclear waste in the ponds into a global competitive industry, which we should have been able to do. The National Nuclear Laboratory has lots of interesting ideas about the future of nuclear and they should be taken forward, but the tragedy for me as a Cumbrian is that at the moment we do not seem to appear much in the plans for the future of the industry, other than as dealing with waste and the possibility of a long-term waste repository.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his very analytical approach at the start of the debate said that we are at a fork in the road; we could go one way towards big reactors on the Sizewell model or the other way towards smaller nuclear reactors. I rather agree with my noble friend Lord West of Spithead that we should do a bit of both. That seems the most risk-free option. The trouble with Britain is that, when we come to these forks in the road, we dither and argue. We have been stop-start on our nuclear policy for the past 30 years. When the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was Energy Minister, we were pushing ahead with a great programme; it was with Mrs Thatcher’s full support but, at the end of the 1980s, that all collapsed. Labour dithered around for quite some time when we came in in 1997 and then decided that we would go ahead with a big nuclear programme. Then we had the coalition, and the Lib Dems said that they would not allow any public funding of nuclear.
There has to be an element of public funding or public guarantee. No private sector company will undertake totally on its own the risks of construction costs running beyond what was anticipated; nor will they bear the very uncertain risks of clean-up at the end of the life of the station. There must be a public-private partnership of some kind in this area if we are going to get anywhere, but we seem to have dithered about it for years and years.
We have got to the point in Cumberland where the only industrial project that has been touted is a new coal mine, which is absolutely ridiculous. What could be more backward-looking than the idea of a new coal mine in west Cumbria when we have a whole lot of expertise that should be able to contribute to a nuclear revival that must play an important part in the fight against climate change?
We need a plan from the Government. I applaud the idea of setting up Great British energy, or whatever it is called, as it might give some coherence to these issues, but we need a plan. At the moment, there is no plan for energy that relates to the grid, which is a huge, unresolved question. What is our plan for the grid? That needs to be put in place. Much of the plan for the grid depends on where you have the generation. I am not making a party-political point, but a general point that we seem to have dithered a lot on all this. I hope the Minister will tell us that we will now get some action.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for tabling this really important debate and for his very balanced introduction. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I may not agree with his support for nuclear, but I now understand where it is coming from.
When I looked down the list of speakers for this debate, I feared that I would be in a minority of those urging caution before taking costly, long-term decisions that would lock us into a new generation of nuclear power plants—whether they be large gigawatt plants, such as EDF’s Sizewell C; the as-yet unproven at scale small modular reactors; or the more exotic advanced modular reactors. So it has proved to be: I am in the minority.
I hope that all speakers in this debate will acknowledge my very firm belief that we must act with extreme urgency to tackle the existential crisis of climate change. Let me assure noble Lords that I would grab with both hands any solution that proponents say could deliver 25% of our clean energy needs by 2050.
However, it is highly questionable whether those claims for nuclear energy are deliverable at a speed dictated by accelerating climate change, cost effectively and at scale, to meet our 2030 target for decarbonised electricity. Often it is a case of jam tomorrow, and nuclear is very expensive jam. It is eye-wateringly expensive, and investment from the private sector is proving to be a challenge. Let us take the example of Sizewell C, the overall cost of which remains shrouded in secrecy. The last published figure, circa £20 billion, dates back to May 2020. I ask the Minister to tell your Lordships’ House how much the Government estimate that it will cost now. He should know, because a capital raise was expected to begin in 2023, with a final investment decision due in 2024.
As I understand it, UK pension funds are not enthused, with Legal and General, NEST, BT and NatWest ruling Sizewell C out. The Government’s plan to include nuclear in the UK’s green taxonomy is unlikely to be a game-changer. The House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee in its July 2023 report on nuclear energy has called for greater transparency on Sizewell C’s costs, its value for money and level of risk, as well as its impact on households, which already face an escalating cost of living crisis. The regulated asset base model, replacing the failed contracts for difference deal struck for Hinkley Point C to pay for nuclear, really is deplorable; it leaves the British taxpayer on the hook for undefined costs as a sweetener for commercial interests.
The optimism of the British energy security strategy in backing new large nuclear projects has failed to generate commensurate enthusiasm from commercial operators. I am afraid that the legacy of nuclear disasters such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima still loom large in people’s memories. Will Sizewell C happen? Who knows? It is beset with problems. French state-owned EDF alone can deliver the European pressurised water reactor. However, it is committed to urgent expansion of French nuclear power, raising serious questions about EDF’s priority in delivering Sizewell C for the UK at the speed required.
Hinkley Point C may or may not open in 2027, so the Government are banking on small modular reactors, smaller versions of conventional water-cooled nuclear reactors. Many different designs are being worked on around the world—about 50, at the last count—yet there is no clear winner. For the moment, our Government are backing the Rolls-Royce choice of design. But here is the rub: these SMRs are proving to be ferociously difficult to standardise for their stated USP, modular assembly. It turns out that nuclear power is site-specific and does not lend itself easily to repetitive design.
The July 2023 Commons Select Committee report on nuclear says:
“Neither SMRs nor AMRs are ready for commercial deployment”.
These are not technologies that will be deployable in the necessary timescale. Another fundamental issue with nuclear is that it is not indigenous in the way that our renewables, such as wind and solar, are. It relies on supplies of enriched uranium. We used to import enriched uranium for Sizewell B from Russia. Could the Minister say where we get it from now?
Even if we were to resurrect our own enrichment capabilities, we would nevertheless be dependent on the import of the mined raw material. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has already talked about some of the geopolitical issues surrounding this. There are those who speak about the reuse of spent fuel, but that technology is not yet deliverable.
The Commons Select Committee report also points out that there is strong competition for resources and minerals, both within the UK and internationally. For example, large domestic infrastructure projects such as HS2 and the nuclear programmes in France for six new nuclear reactors draw on the same skills and resources supply chain that will be needed for our nuclear new build. There is also the fundamental question of whether nuclear reactors are suitable for providing flexible energy to fill gaps left by the intermittency of renewables such as wind and sun, when we need power that can be readily turned on and off. Nuclear reactors do not take kindly to this. Fission is a chain reaction. Once it is going, it is much cheaper and safer to let it continue than to stop-start it. Its inflexibility makes it unsuitable for the role envisaged for it in a net zero future. Not only is it eye-wateringly costly, historically it has been beset by delivery problems, has a complex supply chain and a lack of skilled UK workers. Nuclear does not even solve the baseload problem.
I have not even touched on decommissioning. I know a little about it, as the international maritime transport of spent nuclear fuel was the subject of my master’s dissertation at Imperial College. Decommissioning deserves a debate of its own, so big and intractable is the problem. Stanford University’s recent research on the huge amount of additional toxic nuclear waste generated by SMRs that will be added to piles of legacy waste is a frightening read. There is no depository for it anywhere in the world, despite decades of trying. I assure the Minister that if these fairly substantial barriers to nuclear energy could be overcome, I would wholeheartedly support it. Otherwise, I am much more minded to solve the intermittency problems with maybe boring but pragmatic and quickly deliverable additional renewables. Energy efficiency, interconnectors and storage, both short and long term, also have a vital part to play and are achievable today.
In conclusion, my view is that the better, flexible baseload option would be to invest in tidal power, where the billions spent on nuclear would bear better fruit and be truly green—and British—in the way that nuclear never could be.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for securing this important debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed for their well-informed and welcome efforts to explain such a complex area. The Library staff in both Houses have done an excellent job with their briefings.
We all know that our energy supply reliability and affordability are at the forefront of the thinking of many in government departments at all levels, as well as across industry and consumers. This focus is generated not only by net zero considerations, but by concern about security of supply and cost of living considerations. We now have a clear sense that the clock is ticking fast, and a focus on delivering alternatives to gas should be paramount.
Supporters of nuclear say that it can provide reliable baseload power, bolster energy security, provide industrial or domestic heat and potentially reduce the legacy of nuclear waste produced by reactors and weapons through reuse as fuel. Nuclear power is also a low-carbon power source, as the fission process produces no greenhouse gas emissions.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the average full-cycle emissions of nuclear are below those of fossil fuels and, indeed, some renewables. The uncomfortable truth, as we have heard, is that the contribution of nuclear power to the total energy supply has fallen significantly since the 1990s and is set to decrease further over coming years. Numerous factors have contributed to this, as we have heard. The upfront cost of nuclear power can exceed that of other sources, leading to the need for subsidies or long contract settlements. The meltdown of Fukushima in 2011, on top of previous disasters, contributed to a weakening of global public support for nuclear power and a new series of safety measures that only added, of course, to costs and timescales. Also, the accumulation of nuclear waste continues to draw criticism due to a lack of disposal solutions; some point to renewables such as wind and solar as a cleaner alternative.
It is fair to say that it is still a politically controversial energy source, as we have heard. Some commentators have questioned the value for money of nuclear power, particularly the Hinkley C deal, following a fall in the cost of renewables such as offshore wind. One thing we have not stressed enough today is how we tackle the attitude of the public. Unless we recognise that the public are at best agnostic on this, we will continue to struggle to deliver the solutions we need. I believe that winning over public support will be key and needs to have far more of a focus.
Labour supports the development of nuclear power as an integrated element of our planning and long-term strategy to deliver our future energy needs. It is interesting to reflect back on when the Labour Government came in. As we have heard, there was an interregnum, if you like, in commitment in this area, but in 2006 Tony Blair, addressing the CBI as Prime Minister, made a very prescient comment:
“The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged, there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions; we will become heavily dependent on gas; and at the same time move from being 80/90%, self-reliant in gas to 80/90% dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East and Africa and Russia”.
How that has come home to roost.
The change happened from there. The Labour Government published the Energy Challenge review, saying that there was no one single energy solution and calling for new nuclear to be included, with a wider push for renewables and energy efficiency to achieve a low-carbon, secure and affordable supply of energy, and Gordon Brown continued this, releasing a White Paper on nuclear power. In 2011 the coalition Government, despite their difficulties, developed this and identified eight sites suitable for new nuclear reactors. All these proposed reactors are classed as generation III or generation III+ reactors.
What happened next? Conservative Governments from 2015 have continued to support new nuclear. The final go-ahead for Hinkley Point C was given by the May Government in 2016. In December 2020 the Johnson Government set out, in the Energy White Paper, the aim
“to bring at least one large-scale nuclear project to the point of Final Investment Decision by the end of this Parliament, subject to clear value for money and all relevant approvals”,
and so it has continued. However, the collapse of private sector support for a new plant at Moorside in November 2018 and the suspension of the Hitachi project at Wylfa in January 2019 cast doubt on the future of nuclear plants in the UK, and the Johnson Government did then come forward with a plan to come up with alternative financing models.
All this begs the question of where we stand today, and I hope the Minister will be able to answer some the questions that have been raised and give some much-needed clarity around future and long-term planning. First, we need an explanation of why there has been no delivery of nuclear projects over the past 13 years. I support my noble friend Lord Liddle’s comments and ask the Minister whether Great British Nuclear has a long-term, clear strategy and an investment plan. Will there be a final investment decision on Sizewell C by the end of this Parliament? Moving on from Sizewell, where is the promised announcement on developing a pipeline of new nuclear projects? Promises were made in November 2022 at the launch of Great British Nuclear that plans would be announced earlier this year. Where are those plans?
I firmly believe there is enormous private sector ambition and interest in developing nuclear to its rightful place in contributing to the mix of energy solutions. There is real interest in the thousands of jobs that will be created if the programmes go ahead, but there are serious questions for the Government to answer. First, concerning site provision and associated planning matters, how are the Government going to get these sites away? How will they work to unlock investment and, importantly, what will their contribution be? How can we move away from considering just one proposal at a time to having a long-term plan, including a whole series of proposals—the so-called “fleet deployment approach”?
We have known that successive Governments have supported nuclear power. Reactor designs have of course changed over time, from advanced gas-cooled reactors to pressurised water reactors, to European pressurised reactors and other new advanced designs, as we have heard today. The current and previous Conservative Governments have also been supportive of innovation, such as small modular reactors, fast reactors, molten salt reactors and other generation IV designs. However, I hope that at the end of the session today we will have a much clearer idea of how all this is going to be brought into play. We need certainty and a long-term plan to resolve these matters, and to enable nuclear to fulfil its potential and contribute to tackling the worsening energy and climate crisis that faces us all.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for securing this important and timely debate. I had the pleasure of sitting down with him yesterday morning to discuss nuclear policy in greater detail. I must say that his enthusiasm and expertise in this area are unmatched, and I thank him for his ongoing support for the civil nuclear industry in the UK. I thank also all noble Lords for participating in the debate and for their valuable contributions. I welcome the support for nuclear we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blake; this is an important signal for the industry. I would also like to reference at the outset my support for the Legislators for Nuclear initiative, as referenced by my noble friend Lady Bloomfield and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I understand that noble Lords met earlier this week with my ministerial colleague, Andrew Bowie MP, to discuss this further. I look forward to receiving an update on the progress of this work.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, rightly pointed out, it is 70 years since construction began on the world’s first commercial nuclear power plant at Calder Hall in Cumbria. This incredible technology is undergoing a revival. Climate change, soaring global energy prices and improving nuclear technology have all prompted a rethink in our strategic priorities and, over the last 18 months, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the enduring importance of energy security. This Government recognise the major role nuclear power has played, and will continue to play, in our own energy mix: not only delivering energy security but helping us to decarbonise.
That is why, last year, the Government set out in the British energy security strategy plans to generate up to a quarter of the country’s electricity from nuclear by 2050. To achieve this, we remain committed to the full spectrum of nuclear technologies, from traditional large-scale reactor projects through to exploring more innovative small, advanced and even microreactor designs. That is also why we have launched Great British Nuclear, to ensure we have the right structures in place to help deliver the nuclear programme.
The Government have committed to a new programmatic approach to the delivery of nuclear projects going forward, giving industry and investors the confidence to make the necessary investments that will help deliver projects at pace, while also reducing costs through learning and replication. To deliver this programme, we have launched Great British Nuclear—GBN—which will be an arm’s-length body responsible for helping to enable new nuclear projects, backed with the funding it needs.
GBN will apply a programmatic approach to both project deployment and technology selection. This has two key advantages: it will send the right signals to the sector, to provide long-term certainty and facilitate investment in the supply chain and skills; and it will offset the gradual retirement of existing capacity, strengthening UK energy independence while being central to delivering the decarbonisation needs set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
GBN’s first priority is to identify the small modular reactor technologies best able to deliver a final investment decision by the end of 2029 and deliver projects in the mid-2030s, potentially releasing multi-billions of pounds of private and public investment to build SMR technologies on sites. To this end, following a market engagement exercise, GBN invited SMR technology vendors to register their interest in a technology selection process. The initial application window is now closed, with the ambition being to assess and decide on the leading technologies by the autumn.
In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and as Minister Bowie said this morning at the World Nuclear Symposium, the UK’s technology selection process is three times quicker than that of any contemporary country and gives a unique rigour to the way that the UK selects SMR technology—something that we think will make the UK highly competitive globally.
In response my noble friend Lord Howell’s question about those reactors that have not yet sought government financing, I reiterate that, while GBN’s initial focus is the SMR down-selection process, the Government remain strongly committed to the full spectrum of nuclear technologies and continue to consider how all technologies could further contribute to UK energy security. For the companies referenced by my noble friend Lord Howell, the Government have committed to consult in the autumn on alternative routes to market for nuclear projects, in addition to that provided by the Great British Nuclear small ordmodular reactor technology selection process.
To respond to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on the balance between GW and SMRs, the evidence received will help shape future policy and ensure that the UK’s nuclear programme is as comprehensive and inclusive as possible.
The Government are particularly keen to understand where Great British Nuclear and the Government could support the private sector to bring forward projects, and to understand the different technology designs—as referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his speech—particularly the safety, security and non-proliferation considerations that come with different technologies. As the noble Viscount pointed out when he described the range of different technologies being developed, the Government have recognised this.
To support different designs, the Government have launched the future nuclear enabling fund of up to £120 million, to provide targeted support for new nuclear development. The aim of the FNEF is to help industry reduce project costs, so that it is better positioned for future investment decisions. In July 2023, the Government shortlisted potential grants from the FNEF. This will release up to £77.1 million, to remove barriers to entry for nuclear projects.
In response to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on the supply chain, with the Government’s long-term plans for the deployment of civil nuclear to up to 24 gigawatts by 2050, strengthening domestic capabilities and capacity is a high priority. The development of further nuclear new build, regardless of technology, is likely to bring further supply chain companies to market.
There is good reason for GBN’s initial focus on SMRs. As my noble friend Lord Howell echoed, not only are they potentially less capital intensive to build than traditional nuclear power plants, because of their smaller size, but factory-based modular manufacturing is expected to make them more flexible to deploy, ultimately helping to secure our energy supply and bring down carbon emissions. Importantly, our support for SMRs dates back to 2020, when the Government announced the £385 million advanced nuclear fund to support pioneering SMR designs and to demonstrate an advanced modular reactor by the early 2030s. Of this funding, which a number of my noble friends recognised, up to £210 million was awarded to Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd to ensure that the SMR technology can continue to be developed and progressed according to the UK’s robust regulatory regime.
As my noble friend Lord Trenchard correctly pointed out, nuclear is not just about electricity generation; it is vital to decarbonising the wider heat and water industries. The Government recognise that advanced nuclear innovation creates opportunities for new uses of nuclear energy beyond electricity. That is at the heart of the partnership he referenced between the UK and Japan on high-temperature gas reactors. IT is also central to the Government’s commitment to demonstrate an AMR and the associated R&D fund being allocated in the advanced nuclear fund. Furthermore, we have committed to consult on additional routes to market for nuclear projects later in the autumn.
Delivery of the first reactor building at Hinkley Point C is now well under way. When finished, Hinkley will provide 7% of the country’s electricity, as well as an enormous boost to both the local and national economy, with up to 25,000 new employment opportunities. In response to my noble friend Lord Howell, EDF is aiming for reactor 1 to start commercial operations in June 2027, with reactor 2 forecast to start operating a year later. The cost has moved from between £22 billion and £23 billion to between £25 billion and £26 billion in 2015 monies. The drivers behind this cost and schedule increase are the Covid pandemic, with inefficiencies caused by working restrictions, and an overoptimistic initial cost and schedule estimate by EDF.
In response to the question about Chinese participation in Hinkley Point C from my noble friend Lord Howell, CGN is a minority partner in financing and building Hinkley Point C. It is not involved in major supply chain contracts at Hinkley Point C, nor is it involved in the instrumentation, control systems or any other critical function of the plant, including the intellectual property of the reactor.
Furthermore, the Hinkley project has already revealed a huge amount about how to plan and build large-scale schemes, which will be crucial in the development of the sister project at Sizewell C. That will allow lessons to be learned and costs to be controlled directly in response to delivery challenges, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, highlighted in her speech.
Last November, the Government announced an historic £700 million investment in Sizewell C, the first direct investment in a large-scale nuclear project for more than three decades and directly responding to the delivery challenges highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. As shareholders in this project, we have been pressing ahead with Sizewell C’s development. This summer, we invested and made available a further £511 million to mature the project further. Making that funding available now will mean that the project can start construction faster at the point of any final investment decision being made. From that, we would expect a result in cost savings and faster overall delivery. We are also continuing to develop plans with EDF and the project to raise private capital later this year, using our newly established regulated asset base model for nuclear. In response to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, that will further develop the attractiveness of the industry as a place to invest.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Howell, Sizewell C is expected to be generating power by the mid-2030s, but the timescales for construction will depend on the outcome of our ongoing development of this project. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, that the timing of a final investment decision is intended to be in this Parliament. As a near-exact replica of Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C will benefit from the lessons learned and the established supply chain of that project, providing high levels of maturity and de-risking the project relative to other options.
As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, will appreciate, the capital costs for Sizewell C are commercially sensitive and subject to ongoing negotiations, which means that we cannot at this stage disclose them.
My noble friend Lord Howell asked about Taishan and the quality issue. Framatome has rectified the known issue with the redesign of the fuel assembly for Taishan and it is important to note that Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C use a different design.
To ensure that all this delivers energy security for the United Kingdom, we need to ensure a secure supply of nuclear fuel for future UK reactor fleets and those of our allies. As the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, noted, the UK is in the envious position of having deep fuel cycle capabilities. Preserving and growing this capability to benefit ourselves and our allies is at the heart of the Government’s ambition in the Atlantic declaration earlier in the year for the UK to have full front-end fuel cycle capabilities by the end of the decade, and we have been investing in the sector to deliver that commitment.
As my noble friend Lady Bloomfield correctly pointed out, at the start of the year the Government also launched a nuclear fuel fund of up to £50 million, which will be match-funded by industry, to strengthen our domestic fuel production capability. This is on top of the £13 million we awarded to Westinghouse Springfields Fuels Ltd last autumn to support a venture to convert freshly mined and recycled uranium. Again, this was match-funded to deliver £26 million in benefit to the UK.
To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, the fuel supply for Sizewell B is the responsibility of the operator, EDF, which sources it from the wider EDF supply chain. However, the investments into nuclear fuel facilities in the UK by the nuclear fuel fund are exactly designed to bring new capabilities to the UK and to those who source nuclear fuels, including operators such as EDF. These investments will strengthen UK fuel production capability, develop supply chains for advanced fuels and bolster efforts to diversify nuclear fuel production capacity away from Russia.
While the sourcing of civil fuel is a commercial decision for the reactor operator, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, that the Government, in partnership with our allies, continue to look at how we strengthen and secure fuel supplies for our future reactors to ensure that they are not dependent on Russia. I note in particular the SMR technology selection criteria as an example of how we are doing this. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that the UK’s unique position here, unlike that of most of our global competitors, will increase the export potential for SMRs.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked about medical isotopes. The Government have launched a medical radionuclide innovation programme to identify where further government intervention is required to secure UK supplies, including an ongoing call for evidence from industry to inform this.
Of course, to achieve our ambitions, we must also demonstrate how to deal with our nuclear legacy safely and responsibly by providing the disposal route for the waste. This will also support the delivery of new nuclear projects that the Government are committed to bringing forward.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord West, we are making progress with plans to develop a geological disposal facility to dispose of our most hazardous radioactive waste and the waste that will arise from new nuclear projects. The siting process for the GDF is under way. It is a consent-based approach which requires a willing community to be a partner in the project’s development. Four areas have entered the siting process—some very close to the heart and home of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the home of the UK’s world-beating decommissioning expertise. Three areas are in Cumberland—in Copeland and Allerdale—and one is in Theddlethorpe in Lincolnshire. Geological investigations in the shape of a marine geophysical survey were conducted last summer off the coast of Copeland, Cumberland.
On skills, which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and my noble friends Lady Bloomfield and Lord Trenchard correctly highlighted, we will of course need to address a key challenge in delivering our nuclear ambitions, ensuring that we have sufficient skills across our nuclear enterprise. The new Nuclear Skills Taskforce will ensure that the UK’s defence and civil nuclear sectors have the right people with the right skills to seize growth opportunities. It will build on existing work, cohering and turbocharging actions to address the skills challenges across the whole nuclear sector.
Finally, I will address the question on planning from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Although the process brought in by the Planning Act 2008 has been successful, we recognise that the current volumes and the complexity of applications have introduced greater challenges and resulted in longer timeframes for reviewing decisions over recent years. This is why we are pressing ahead with our action plan for reform. Furthermore, we are developing a new nuclear national policy statement, or NPS, which will cover the deployment of new nuclear power stations beyond 2025. This new NPS will take into account the changes in the nuclear landscape since the current NPS was published in 2011, including the realistic potential for deployment of advanced nuclear technologies such as SMRs.
To conclude, when construction began at Calder Hall seven decades ago, nuclear power was a bright and shining beacon that promised cheap, clean and reliable energy. Today we are witnessing the beginnings of a renaissance in nuclear power, only this time we have the proven, reliable and safe technology required to exploit its full potential and a Government determined to do everything we can to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in civil nuclear power. I thank noble Lords again for their varied yet equally important contributions to this debate.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive wind-up. He answered many of our questions—almost all, I think, although perhaps not one or two. I thank all those who have taken part in this debate with an excellent mixture of expertise, judgment and wisdom, all of which are needed in this issue. The debate has been short but the issues are absolutely vast, and we will have to return to them again and again in the coming months and years. I am particularly grateful that the general tone is very strong support for the newer technologies, the smaller machines, the quicker build and the better prospect of attracting private investment.
If anything is missing, it is slightly that question of finance. I see shadows of the magic money tree again. The FT ran an article yesterday based on the view of the noble Lord, Lord Stern, that the energy transition is going to cost £100 trillion spread over the next 27 years. Yet we know that there is no more money—indeed, the Labour shadow Chancellor always recognises that. It is rather like in 2010; there was no more money then, although for different reasons, and now there is no more money. Where is it going to come from? The answer is that there is masses of money around the world, in the pension funds and the sovereign wealth funds, but it will come into our system only if it is investable. If we build giant white elephants on yesterday’s technology, no one will touch it, and certainly not investors. That is my only regret.
There is expert knowledge and, I hope, a momentum from this short debate for us to move forward into areas where we can attract the private money, the waste is limited, popular understanding of and support for what has to happen is increased, and we are able to move forward towards our goals of a low-carbon, green energy economy and a prosperity that at the moment seems to be eluding us.