House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we start today’s business, I want to make a brief statement about a security matter.
Members and others will have seen media reports yesterday about a security issue relating to the Chinese state and access to this House. I understand that the Metropolitan police have now confirmed that two men were arrested in March on suspicion of offences relating to espionage and that they are on police bail until early October.
As you know, we do not discuss the details of security issues on the Floor of the House, for reasons that are well understood. This is an ongoing, sensitive investigation and Members will of course understand that public discussion of it would be wholly inappropriate. However, I want to reassure Members that the House follows the same vetting procedures as the Government; that issues raised by the media stories are being addressed; and that our security are working closely and effectively with other relevant authorities. We keep our security arrangements under review at all times in order to deal with the evolving threats.
The extremely small number of people who needed to know were immediately briefed, on a strictly confidential basis, given the national security of this sensitive matter. At this stage, I do not wish to say anything further about this issue, and I would remind all Members of the importance of not discussing security issues on the Floor of the House. That is particularly important in this case, where commenting on the identities of those alleged to be involved, engaging in speculation about the case or discussing other details runs a serious risk of prejudicing any further prosecutions—the comments made in the media were unhelpful—something for which I am sure no Member would want to be responsible.
I do not intend to take any points of order on this matter. If Members have security concerns, they are, of course, welcome to raise them outside this Chamber with me or with the House security professionals, or with both.
Business before questions
New Writ
Ordered,
That, on the fourteenth day of September 2023, Mr Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Tamworth in the room of Christopher John Pincher, who since his election for the said County Constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of His Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—(Simon Hart.)
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with the Secretary of State and his family during sitting shiva.
It is right that we record here today the anniversary of 9/11, a terrible act that changed our world. Let me also say that the UK is standing with the Kingdom of Morocco; we are engaged on the ground already and stand by to help in any way that we can.
Defence recognises the need to evolve so that we continue to attract and retain the very best. To that end, the MOD commissioned the Haythornthwaite review into armed forces incentivisation, which was published in June. I will respond formally on behalf of the Department in the coming months, but it is supportive of the recommendations. On retirement ages, I have committed to work with officials and the single services to review rigid cut-offs and to consider establishing an assessment framework to be used on a case-by-case basis.
Christine Jardine
May I associate myself with the earlier remarks of the Minister, whom I thank for his answer? As he is aware, I have already taken an interest and written in about this issue. I have a constituent who came to me recently having spent a good number of years in the armed forces. He is very proud of what he has given to keep our country safe but is concerned that the armed forces, particularly the Army, are losing institutional memory. He feels that the cut-off age of 55 for reservists is too young, certainly for more administrative roles. Will the MOD take that into account in the review and consider allowing reservists to stay longer in those roles?
Dr Murrison
I am really happy to declare my interest at this point, as I am in my 63rd year and I remain a reservist. I am sympathetic to the points that the hon. Lady makes and we will certainly factor them into our review.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
We know that the Defence Secretary is with his close family today, and we in the Opposition extend our deepest condolences.
I also offer the Secretary of State our warmest congratulations. Over the years and in different roles, I have shadowed him and he has shadowed me, and we both know that the first duty of any Government is to keep our country safe. I will always look to work with him on that basis in his new job.
On personnel, levels of satisfaction with service life have plunged a third over the past 13 years. What is the plan to lift those record low levels of military morale?
Dr Murrison
The right hon. Gentleman paints an overly gloomy picture of life in the armed forces for most people. It is a rewarding career and they take with them the skills that they need into civilian life and prosper. However, we are aware of our need to compete in the workplace in the years ahead and, to that end, we have commissioned Rick Haythornthwaite’s review, which we broadly agree with and will respond to very soon.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me also associate SNP Members with the words of the Minister for the Secretary of State at this sad time. We also think of Morocco and all those New Yorkers who are remembering today.
We know that the cost of living crisis is affecting us all equally. The Minister has said some fine words today, but we know that for his party, there is often an inverse relationship between rhetoric and action with regard to our personnel. Will the Minister tell the House and members of the armed forces what his Government will do to remedy the shameful reality of armed forces personnel being given the lowest pay rise among public servants—a paltry 5%?
Dr Murrison
I think the hon. Gentleman may be in error: the lowest paid members of our armed forces were awarded 9.7% by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, a recommendation that we accepted in full. Seniors got 5.8% and those of two-star rank and above got 5.5%. That will give the best pay award to the least well paid in our armed forces.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I disagree on the numbers. Let us talk about the rhetoric from the right hon. Gentleman—unless his Government are willing to deal with pay and housing conditions for the armed forces properly. As the armed forces personnel leave the forces for better-paid jobs, could it not be time to consider the reason that the police were able to secure an almost 50% higher pay rise than our other uniformed public servants? Was it because they have a statutory body to represent them in dealing with the Government, and why do his Government not support that action?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman has ignored what I have been saying. He also did not make reference to the freezing of charges for accommodation and food, wraparound childcare and a whole raft of measures that we have introduced to help with the cost of living crisis.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Royal Air Force pilots and ground crew are poised on quick reaction alert 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all year round, ready to scramble within minutes. My hon. Friend would point out quickly that it would be remiss of me to say that that is solely the endeavour of fast jet pilots. Equally poised are those in his constituency who crew the tankers that must also deploy rapidly to support. QRA has been launched on five occasions in 2023 with every incident resolved successfully.
Robert Courts
I thank the Minister for his kind words about my constituents. He will no doubt have read the report from the Select Committee on Defence, “Aviation Procurement: Winging it?”, which warns of an unacceptable gap in combat air mass. With the retirement of the Hercules placing even more demands on the air mobility force, and the Voyagers—to which he rightly pays tribute—being asked to do more and more each month, what confidence does he have that, if required to do so, those forces have enough men, women and machines to defend the UK in a peer conflict?
James Heappey
I have complete confidence that quick reaction alert will be resourced. The highest priority of the air force is to defend the homeland. I also have complete confidence that the combat air force, as currently structured, is capable of performing a very wide range of duties around the world. I pay tribute to the work of the Air and Space Commander and his team, who, through work on agile deployment, are finding that we can deploy Typhoon and F-35 ever more quickly to ever more austere operating environments. That drives the productivity of the force even further.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
There is, of course, no question over the quality of combat aircrews, but there is a big question mark over the quantity of aircraft that they can fly. I want to challenge the Minister on the confidence he has just articulated, because there are serious concerns that our combat aircrew are engaged almost universally in transit and air policing, and have very little aircraft availability to practise proper combat air. What is his assessment of that concern?
James Heappey
We take very seriously the work that the Defence Committee does; we enjoy reading the Committee’s reports and, as I hope members of the Committee and of the House recognise, often take the findings into policy. I do push back gently, however, because in addition to the incredible work of QRA and the support the Royal Air Force has given to NATO missions over the last 18 months, since the start of the war in Ukraine, they have also been able to support carrier strike deployments, deployment on Exercise Red Flag, and indeed the deployment of a below squadron in strength, all the way across to Australia. That gets to exactly what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts): that this ability to deploy air force with greater agility, further from home, in more austere settings, is a step change for the Royal Air Force, allowing it to operate from more austere environments rather than solely from its home bases.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The latest estimates suggest that Ministry of Defence investment supports over 200,000 jobs in industries across the UK. I believe that the best way to keep growing jobs in defence is to back the British defence industry. That is why I am delighted to confirm that, this week in London, we are hosting the biggest ever DSEI—Defence and Security Equipment International—showcasing the very best of the British defence industry, with companies large and small. We should remember that they provide not only prosperity in every part of our country, but the means to defend ourselves in an increasingly contested world.
Mr Sharma
The Defence Secretary’s predecessor rightly prioritised British jobs over buying off-the-shelf from America, but The Times recently exposed a difference of opinion with the Prime Minister, who insisted on buying American helicopters. Can the Minister assure the House that the Secretary of State will stand up for British jobs and research and development, or is our only hope to replace him with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)?
James Cartlidge
Debate is ongoing in defence procurement, and has been for many years, about the difference between buying off-the-shelf and having our own sovereign capability. The fact is that, until we brought out the defence and security industrial strategy in 2021, arguably the default position of the MOD was to go primarily for value for money. Since DSIS, we have a more flexible and balanced approach, seen in many specific procurements, where we give much greater weighting to social value and local content. This is illustrated in many procurements because, above all, we want to support British jobs and have our own sovereign capability.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My condolences to the Secretary of State.
Babcock is one of the largest defence employers in the country, but as reported in the Sunday press, its record on refits of surface ships is woeful. It took over four years to refit the Type 23 frigate HMS Iron Duke. Its record on submarines is even worse, taking seven years to refit a Trident boat. According to the journal Navy Lookout, which said this online, so presumably the Russians and the Chinese could have read it, a few weeks ago not a single one of our attack submarines was at sea; they were all tied up alongside. This is deeply embarrassing to the Department and to the Royal Navy, whose admirals are tearing their hair out. It is Babcock’s fault. Will Minister get the senior directors of Babcock into the Department for an interview without coffee, and ask them to raise their game for the benefit of the Navy and the defence of the realm?
James Cartlidge
I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend, but he will appreciate that we do not comment on the operational availability of submarines, which is a particularly sensitive matter. However, he is absolutely right that we need to focus on the time it is taking to bring ships and all aspects of our fleet back into service. I confirm that I regularly engage with Babcock, and I will visit Devonport very soon.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The Government have wasted £15 billion through the mismanagement of defence procurement, while failing to deliver vital equipment and overseeing the loss of 30,000 highly skilled jobs in the defence and aerospace industry since 2010. Does the Minister accept that preventing another 13 years of Tory failure is key to increasing the number of UK-based jobs in the defence sector, backing British industry and British military resilience?
James Cartlidge
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new position as my ministerial shadow. We are very proud of our record, because in the past year or so we have been faced with a war on our doorstep in Europe, and procurement has risen to the occasion. Defence Equipment and Support in Abbey Wood has delivered kit to Ukraine in record speed. We have seen the acquisition of equipment such as the Archer on a quick basis, to fit our requirements. I absolutely confirm that we are committed to maximising the number of jobs that come from our procurement, while balancing that with the need to give our armed forces the best possible capability.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The MOD delivers a range of services to veterans and their families, including the administration and payment of armed forces pensions and compensation, and tailored advice and assistance through the Veterans Welfare Service, Defence Transition Services and integrated personal commissioning for veterans. The independent reviews of those services were published in July, and we will respond in full to the recommendations later this year.
Maggie Throup
Last October my constituent, a disabled veteran who served with distinction in Afghanistan and Iraq, applied to the war pension and armed forces compensation schemes. Despite his supplying all the information required, and medical evidence, he is still waiting for the determination of his case almost 12 months on. Will my right hon. Friend look into the case as a matter of urgency and carry out a review of the waiting times for the schemes to make sure that nobody else has to wait such a long time to get their due rewards?
Dr Murrison
If my hon. Friend is able to provide further details of that specific case, I would be happy to investigate. The latest armed forces compensation scheme quinquennial review was published on 17 July 2023. The review process aims to ensure that the scheme remains fit for purpose and to identify opportunities for improvement of the sort that my hon. Friend highlighted. The review’s recommendations are currently being considered—I think timeliness is foremost among them—and a Government response will be published later this year.
Debbie Abrahams
The Royal British Legion’s recent report showed that only 8% of disabled veterans who applied for employment and support allowance had their service medical records considered in their work capability assessment. I extend my condolences to the Defence Secretary, but what discussions has he had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about this matter, and on disregarding all military compensation awards for means-tested and income-based assessments such as for housing benefit?
Dr Murrison
Such conversations are live in the context of the work I previously described. We will take into account the hon. Lady’s points, which have been made by several people in the defence and veterans community. I know that people feel strongly about such issues. Ultimately, of course, it is a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
This House as a whole provides vociferous support for our veterans of all kinds, particularly through the mechanism of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to pay tribute to Miss Amy Swash, who has now run the APPG for me for eight years, but will sadly leave us shortly for other jobs. I thank her for all the work she has done for a superb amount of time, in particular to raise the plight of veterans.
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I add my tributes to his. I also express my admiration for the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which does a fantastic job in informing and educating colleagues.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In July, the Government published a review of the treatment of LGBTQ+ veterans. The previous Secretary of State’s response to that won him many plaudits and his reaction was welcomed, but he did say that he would take his time to ensure we got things right. Can the Minister give us an update on when we can expect a response to the recommendations?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right to raise that. At the time I said that the community should allow us time, but not too much time, and I am sure they will hold us to that. We will respond in full to the large number of recommendations, but we are broadly supportive of Lord Etherton’s work and there is much in it that we utterly agree with, plus some that we would like to add in the way of changes for the future.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
On that theme, the loss of livelihoods and the long-term suffering endured by LGBT+ veterans due to the cruel and unjust ban on homosexuality in the armed forces has been enormous. The Opposition welcome the Etherton review into the ban, and its recommendations, which represent the beginning of a long-overdue healing process. The Secretary of State’s predecessor promised that the Government would provide a full response to the review’s recommendations after the summer recess, which the House would have an opportunity to debate. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will respond to the recommendations and that the House will still be provided with time to debate that response?
Dr Murrison
Clearly, we will be debating this at some length; I hope the House, when it sees the Government response to Lord Etherton’s recommendations, will be pleased with it. At the moment, we are working with the community, particularly Fighting With Pride, to ensure that what we put in place is right and is acceptable to those who have been done down by the events between 1967 to 2000.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I am pleased to say that the nuclear test medal is now in production, and we are ensuring that as many as possible of the more than 2,000 veterans and families who have applied for the medal will have it in time for this year’s Remembrance events.
Dr Evans
The Minister will know that I take an interest in the veterans issue, and I declare an interest as the president of Hinckley’s Royal British Legion. A constituent, Alfred Roy Davenport, served in the RAF medical team from November 1956 to November 1959, stationed on Christmas Island. He is 85 and concerned about the delay there has been in the awarding of these medals, so can my right hon. Friend confirm that all veterans will have these awards ready for Remembrance Sunday, so that our servicemen and women can be congratulated on and recognised for their service?
Dr Murrison
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs stated in the House on 7 September, the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that as many nuclear test veterans as possible receive their medals in time for Remembrance Sunday. I appreciate the importance of that. A presentation event to award the first medals is actively being considered by the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, but it is a balance between issuing the medals for Remembrance Sunday and ensuring that they are awarded in an appropriate manner to this cohort.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
In a written question to the Minister, I asked whether any files had been removed from the MOD’s health records of nuclear test veterans. He assured me that the Department was “not aware” of any removal, but many nuclear veterans continue to report finding large gaps when requesting their medical records. Can the Minister therefore clarify, if the files have not been removed,
how nuclear veterans and their families can gain full access to them?
Dr Murrison
They will need to apply for a subject access request. I reiterate what I said in my answer to her written question: we of course do everything we can to locate records when people request them, and I assure her that we could find none on this occasion.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The Ministry of Defence’s priority remains the relocation of ARAP-eligible Afghans to the safety of third countries at best pace. His Majesty’s Government continue to accommodate and support ARAP-eligible people in third countries while they await relocation to the United Kingdom.
Chi Onwurah
I am proud to have an Afghan interpreter for the British armed forces as a constituent, but I was ashamed to learn from him that his brother, who worked for six years directly for the Special Air Service in Helmand province, had applied under the ARAP scheme and been rejected without a proper explanation. He is now in hiding in Afghanistan. Will the Minister take up that case as a matter of urgency, and will he explain to the House why his Government are still failing to support those Afghans who risked so much to support our armed forces?
James Heappey
The hon. Lady mentions a specific role about which it would be inappropriate to speculate on the Floor of the House. I will, of course, look at the particular case that she mentions. However, it is worth reminding right hon. and hon. colleagues that the ARAP scheme was intended for those who had been in direct support of the UK military—interpreters, most often—and, beyond that, there is a very narrow opportunity for those with special circumstances who have come through under category 4. When colleagues write to the Ministry of Defence to raise a case, they often do so on behalf of somebody who might have served in the Afghan national security forces, not necessarily in the direct employ of the UK military. That is not to cast any judgment on the case that she raises—I will look at that specifically and write to her.
Matt Western
There is a deep sense of injustice among former serving officers and other military personnel that we have forgotten the moral obligation to Afghan military personnel and others who served alongside us. Will the Minister confirm just how many Afghan former military personnel are currently presenting as homeless in the UK, and how many are currently in hotels in Pakistan?
James Heappey
It seems that my initial reply might have been quite useful, but the hon. Gentleman may not have heard or understood it. ARAP is not explicitly for those who served in the Afghan armed forces alongside the British military; it is for those who served in the employ of the British military in all but a very narrow number of cases. I will write to him on his precise question about Afghan service personnel who are now homeless in the UK—I suspect that they are remarkably few—but Afghan service personnel are not the main target of ARAP. As someone who served in Afghanistan, I share the sense of many of my former colleagues who would have liked to have done more, but that is simply never what ARAP was designed to do. Neither is it credible that the hundreds of thousands of people who served in the Afghan national forces could all be relocated to the UK.
Janet Daby
In 2021, I held a public meeting shortly after the evacuation from Afghanistan. It was widely attended by worried and distressed residents, who all wanted help for their relatives’ desperate situations in Afghanistan. Over two years have passed, and there are huge problems with ARAP. Can the Minister say why the Government are allowing people and their relatives to suffer for so long?
James Heappey
There is a known number of people who worked in the employ of the British military during our campaign in Afghanistan. Our priority has been to work through and match the lists of people we know have worked for us with those who are applicants. It is my understanding that only about 2,000 applications are outstanding, and that 58,000 decisions have been taken in the past two months alone. Overwhelmingly, those decisions are, I am afraid, to say no to people, but we are making good progress and are nearing the end of tracking down all those we know have worked for us.
Catherine West
I return to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western): how many applicants are still being kicked out of hotels in the UK, and how many are applying from Pakistan and in hiding?
James Heappey
The Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) asked a very particular question about Afghan service personnel, as the record will show. I answered it, but I will need to go away and confirm, because that is not something that ARAP is intended to meet and we will need to see if we can find those statistics. The hon. Lady asks how many applicants have been removed from hotels. The plan is to remove all ARAP applicants from hotels, because they are not here illegally; they have not arrived on boats across the channel. They are entitled to be here, they have access to full universal credit and housing benefit, and much more importantly, they have the right to work immediately on arrival. Our priority, unapologetically—I hope she agrees that this is the right approach—is to get people out of hotels and into houses where they can get on with the life that they so deserve here in the UK as legal citizens.
Dame Nia Griffith
It is hardly in the spirit of Operation Warm Welcome that, as the second anniversary of the evacuation of Kabul passed, Afghans who supported our armed forces were still left crowded into hotels at the taxpayer’s expense, or expected to move hundreds of miles from where they have managed to find employment and their children have settled into schools. When does the Minister now expect all Afghans in the schemes to be moved out of hotels and given suitable offers of accommodation?
James Heappey
I actually agree with the hon. Lady—her question stands in contrast with the previous one, because it was about the need to get people out of hotels, not suggesting that they should somehow be staying in them. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has been leading on this task around Government. Few in this House have more emotional energy to drive that mission than he does. He sees it as of huge importance that people are moved out of hotels and allowed to get on with their lives as quickly as possible. I will ask his office to write to the hon. Lady with the exact detail of when he hopes to see the job done.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I commend to the Defence team and, indeed, the House the new book by Larisa Brown, “The Gardener of Lashkar Gah”, which outlines in great detail the sort of debt we owe to the people who tried to help our forces. My specific question is not about people serving with the Afghan forces; it is about whether we have a proper database of all those who served with the British forces and are eligible under the scheme, and whether the Minister can guarantee that the scheme will not be closed while some of those people—probably a large number of them—are still in hiding in Afghanistan and thus unable to apply for it.
James Heappey
It will not surprise my right hon. Friend to know that the people who worked for the British armed forces over our extended period in Afghanistan appeared on many different lists, and part of the job of work over the past 18 months or so has been to consolidate those into an authoritative list of those whom we know to have worked for us. However, we do have very good records, as one would expect the military to have kept. That allows us to focus our search on people whom we know to be eligible within the pile of applications, and of late, to make rapid progress in informing those who are ineligible. We will, of course, keep the scheme open for as long as it takes to find all of those whom we know worked for us.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his considered remarks. Will he join me in thanking both Colchester City Council and Essex County Council for their work in supporting many Afghan nationals locally who have been in hotels since last autumn? The councils have aided those people to get into housing; however, we still have six families and 40 individuals who need to be supported in temporary accommodation. As such, can the Minister give assurances to the House about the cross-Government work that is taking place to ensure that those families come out of hotels and become settled, and in particular the work that his Department is leading on, helping to get Afghans into employment so that they can settle in the United Kingdom?
James Heappey
I can absolutely give my right hon. Friend the assurance she asks for. Given her previous role in Government, she knows better than anybody that those men and women who have come here have every legal right to start work and to settle in the UK. They deserve their journey here on the back of what they did in support of our armed forces, so we will support them while they are in hotels, and better still, once we have got them settled in more permanent accommodation, we will support them into employment. I will make sure that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs briefs my right hon. Friend on his work on that matter.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Our commitment to NATO is unwavering. We have strengthened our force posture in Estonia, stationed a light cavalry squadron in Poland, provided the NATO mission in Kosovo with personnel, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, and provided specialist personnel to the NATO mission in Iraq. The national flagship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, sailed over the weekend, and will shortly fly the NATO flag as the NATO flagship while on operations in the Euro-Atlantic. We contribute to every NATO mission, declare our nuclear deterrent to NATO, and consistently spend at least 2% of gross domestic product on defence. We will maintain our leading position in NATO over the decades ahead.
Valerie Vaz
I place on record my condolences to the current Defence Secretary, and my thanks to the former Defence Secretary, whom we wish well in whatever he undertakes to do.
I thank the Minister for his full response. He will know that NATO’s obligations are to work with partners, so can he say what discussions he has had with his counterparts in NATO about working with the African Union to ensure stability and security in that region?
James Heappey
Colleagues have rightly offered their condolences to the new Secretary of State, and remarked on the anniversary of 9/11, but the thing that has maybe fallen through the cracks is for us to send our regards to the former Secretary of State, with whom I had the great pleasure of working for three and a half years. His effort and contribution to defence was quite extraordinary, and I think he will be remembered in history as one of the great Secretaries of State. He should be very proud of everything he achieved.
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that NATO’s southern flank, Africa, is of enormous importance to Europe and the security of the Euro-Atlantic. It will not surprise her to know that, in the wake of the coups over the summer in both Niger and Gabon, conversations among European Defence Ministers and NATO Defence Ministers have been regular and urgent as people seek to understand what the response could be. It does not look like it is one in which NATO would be to the fore, but it is clearly in NATO’s interests that a European response in Africa to these coups is forthcoming.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I send my condolences to the Secretary of State.
As my right hon. Friend knows, membership of NATO requires an expenditure of 2% of GDP. This is an arbitrary and paltry figure bearing in mind the threats that we all face. What discussions is he having with other NATO partners, many of which are not even spending the 2%, to increase their spending on defence?
James Heappey
I steer my hon. Friend to the communiqué from the Vilnius summit, which was very clear that NATO countries that are not yet spending 2% need urgently to increase their spending to do so. Our Prime Minister has gone further and indicated his willingness to spend 2.5% on defence once the economic circumstances allow. I think that that is the right order, because we cannot have physical security without economic security.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
After 13 years of Tory Army cuts, serious and senior military figures are now questioning the UK’s ability to deliver our NATO obligations. While NATO is boosting the size of its high-readiness forces from 40,000 to 300,000 following Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, UK Ministers plan to cut the Army further to the smallest since the Napoleonic era. The last Conservative Defence Secretary told this House that the Government had “hollowed out and underfunded” our armed forces. Is that still the position of the Ministry of Defence, and will the Tory Army cuts still be forced through by this latest set of Ministers?
James Heappey
The former Secretary of State’s comment, which the shadow Minister conveniently quotes in a limited way, was that successive Governments had failed to invest in the enablers that underpinned our war-fighting capability. It is to the credit of this Prime Minister and the two Conservative Prime Ministers who went before him that commitments have been made to grow our defence budgets, including under Prime Minister Johnson a £19 billion increase to the defence budget and under this Prime Minister another £5 billion in the last year or so. The shadow Minister also ignores this: when he says that NATO is increasing its rapid reaction force, that does not mean that in NATO armies are growing; it just means that the armies in NATO are committing ever more of the forces they have to NATO’s high-readiness formations. The British Army is to the fore in that.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I said in May to the House that we aim to process all outstanding initial ARAP applications by the end of August. I can report that we have just 2,000 complex cases remaining from more than 93,000 principal applications that we received. We have issued over 58,000 decisions to applicants in the past three months, giving them the clarity they deserve, and we continue to move at best pace to process the remaining applications.
David Simmonds
I thank my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues for the work done over the summer, including with Hillingdon and Harrow councils in my constituency, on support for those who have served in support of our armed forces. In future, as Afghan bridging operations come to a close, can he commit to work with local authorities to ensure that those who have put their lives on the line supporting our military operations continue to be supported in their new lives here in the UK?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
What liaising does the Minister do with the Home Office? I have an Afghan special forces interpreter who came here having done valiant work during Operation Pitting. His mother, father and siblings left Afghanistan and ended up in Ukraine of all places, and they moved to the UK last year. The Home Office gave them temporary leave to remain, only for them to receive a letter in the past couple of months saying that they would have to be deported back to either Afghanistan, Ukraine or Rwanda. In that case I interceded and the Minister’s office helped, but what is going on between his Department and the Home Office?
James Heappey
From the question, I can see all sorts of ways in which that might present quite a confusing case to colleagues in the Home Office, especially if those in Ukraine proceeded to the UK under a mechanism other than the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. May I look at the detail of the case and come back to the right hon. Gentleman, rather than speculate?
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The Government continue to invest significant sums to improve the quality of UK service family accommodation, with £337 million invested over financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22 combined, and £163 million in 2022-23. The forecast for this financial year is £312 million.
Emma Hardy
Ofsted chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, has repeatedly said that she has “deep concerns” about the “continued failures” to improve service accommodation for armed forces recruits over the past seven years. Will the Minister explain why those concerns from neutral Ofsted inspector Amanda Spielman have fallen on deaf ears, and why those improvements are yet to be made?
James Cartlidge
This is an extremely important subject, and we care immensely about improving our estate. Such concerns do not fall on deaf ears. If that were the case we would not have put on the table a further £400 million for SFA in the defence Command Paper refresh. Precisely because of that additional funding, this year our spend will be almost double that of last year.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister said he was going to lead by example, and that when it came to the military base at Catterick, he was going to ensure that illegal migrants were housed there. We now understand that the generals have said they do not want a bunch of Afghans and Iraqis next to their squaddies, so nothing is happening with regard to illegal migrants being put there, although the Ministry of Defence is so determined that its soldiers should not be placed near migrants that it is moving them out of RAF Scampton. When will illegal migrants be placed in Catterick, as promised by the Prime Minister? I want a date and I want it now.
James Cartlidge
I visited Catterick on Friday and I discussed precisely that matter with senior members of the armed forces based at Catterick. The characterisation that my right hon. Friend uses is not correct. These matters are being considered objectively and carefully, but that work is ongoing.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The Defence Infrastructure Organisation provides additional needs and disability adaptations to service family accommodation. Those provide changes to SFA to meet a family’s needs, as set out by a suitably qualified healthcare professional. Once the scope of any adaptation has been agreed with all parties, works will be delivered as quickly as possible. That gives service personnel reassurance that their families’ needs can be met wherever they are assigned, regardless of the length and number of postings they have within their service career.
Helen Morgan
The Minister will remember that in June I asked about a badly injured veteran in my constituency. He has written confirmation from the former Defence Minister in 2021 that he would receive extensive adaptations to his home. Those adaptations have not happened, and the situation is so serious that Op Courage has instigated safeguarding proceedings against the Ministry of Defence to protect my constituent. In June the Minister requested that I write to him. I did so yet again, but I still have not received a reply. Will the Minister meet me finally to sort this out? In doing so, will he reassure the House that a Conservative Minister’s word is worth the paper it is signed on?
Dr Murrison
I think that is a little harsh. I have discussed this matter with the hon. Lady, and I would of course be more than happy to meet her to discuss her constituent’s case further. She will forgive me if I do not share the details with the House.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I was privileged to attend the Invictus games this weekend in Düsseldorf. It was truly humbling to meet inspiring individuals who have triumphed in adversity. I took the opportunity to discuss with my Ukrainian counterpart the care and rehabilitation of veterans and the UK’s unwavering support for her country.
Simon Jupp
There are more than 265,000 former members of the armed forces in the south-west, many of whom reside in my constituency of East Devon. We must ensure that every veteran can access the services they need when they leave the service. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress being made towards delivering ID cards to all veterans by Remembrance Day this year?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend will be aware that phase 1 of this project is already completed, which is to say that as people leave the armed forces, they are issued with their veterans cards. Those who left before December 2018 should get their cards by the end of this year. A veteran does not require a card to prove their status; there are several ways to verify service, and the lack of a card should not act as a barrier to accessing support, but I recognise the importance of this card for many, in particular as a form of proving their identity and accessing services.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
As Ministers know, UK unity on Ukraine stays strong and the Government will continue to have Labour’s fullest support on military aid. Ukrainians are now urgently asking for more to help their current counter-offensive to succeed, and since January, the Prime Minister has repeatedly pledged to accelerate Ukraine’s support. When will this happen?
Dr Murrison
The right hon. Gentleman will know full well that the United Kingdom is probably the lead nation on many fronts among our European peers— financially, in terms of kit and in supporting the people who are conducting the fight against Putin’s aggression. We will continue to do that, and at the weekend in Düsseldorf, I reiterated that to my Ukrainian counterpart. I do not think anybody could be in any doubt that the United Kingdom is leading Europe on this front, and we will continue to do so.
John Healey
But I fear UK leadership on Ukraine is flagging. The UK Government have committed £4.6 billion, yet Germany has now committed €17 billion. The UK’s 14 tanks have now been dwarfed by 324 from Poland, and last week’s decision to proscribe Wagner as a terrorist group was taken by the European Union 10 months ago. Will the Minister accept that we must accelerate UK military support and redouble the UK’s defence diplomacy to maintain western unity and solidarity?
Dr Murrison
The UK Government prefer action rather than words, and I point to the 20,000 Ukrainians we are training, to Storm Shadow and to the fact that kit is going out the door right now and being used on the ground. Rhetoric is one thing; action is another. In that way, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has to admit that the UK is continuing to lead Europe. We will certainly do so going forward, and there can be no doubt that Ukrainians themselves appreciate the strength and rigour of UK—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is topicals; I decide how quick they will be. I do not need any help from those on the Front Bench. Can we please make sure we get Back Benchers in? If not, tell me which one you do not want to allow in.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
Dr Murrison
CEA is an important way of making sure that the education of service children is not disrupted. To that end, I have asked for a review of CEA to make sure it is fit for purpose, and I will have the results of that review later this year.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Yes, I can commit to meet her and her constituent, if she wishes to do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. It must be clear to everyone just from what is available on social media that uncrewed air systems, as they are called, have an extraordinary impact in theatre. I reassure him that we are working on a strategy to look at how we can make the most of this capability to ensure that, above all, we have our own cutting-edge sovereign capability.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
James Cartlidge
I did give a statement to the House—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present—in which I confirmed that we would learn the lessons of the Sheldon review, but, above all, confirmed the good news that Ajax was with the field Army for regular training. I hear that that training is going extremely well.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not know off the top of my head what those recommendations relate to. I can say to him that Defence is very fortunate in having him and his colleagues as co-authors of the report on the armed forces family strategy steering group, acting as critical friends and holding Defence to account against the strategy action plan. I would be more than happy to meet him to go through those recommendations one by one.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
James Cartlidge
At the moment, we are not releasing specific details because the work is ongoing, but I assure him and the House on two points. First, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation has been undertaking a huge amount of work—in fact, there has been work on RAAC in the MOD context since 2019. Most importantly, we are not aware of any impact from RAAC on service family accommodation.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
James Cartlidge
It is good news on both fronts for my hon. Friend. First, yes, a lot of work is going on to improve the speed of procurement. I am also pleased to confirm that I have already a visit planned to her part of the world in a couple of weeks. I will liaise with her office about meeting those companies.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Today marks the anniversary of 9/11, and while our focus now has returned to state aggression, does the Minister agree that the threat of Islamic extremism—whether home-grown or from abroad—remains and that our defence posture should reflect that?
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although the focus of the MOD and so many other parts of the Government has increasingly been on hostile state actors over the last few years, today more than any is a reminder of the threat of violent extremism. I pay tribute to the hundreds of men and women around the UK armed forces who are deployed on missions countering violence and extremism as I speak.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Will the Minister update the House on the progress being made to settle the claims of thousands of veterans and their families for what is commonly called Gulf war syndrome?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Member is right to raise that. The armed forces compensation scheme is up and running for them. I am afraid that there have been delays in some of those applications; I referred to that earlier on. On the science behind it, obviously, we in Defence comply with the best available, as assessed by the independent medical expert group, and we will make policy accordingly. I understand the point he is making and would be happy to discuss it with him further.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Ukrainian and UK defence companies are going up against barriers and bureaucracy when trying to set up joint working and joint projects. Could my hon. Friend update the House on how he is reducing that, so that bilateral collaboration can be made easier and quicker?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion of all matters relating to our relationship with Ukraine. We have seen very rapid procurement, particularly in relation to urgent requirements going into Abbey Wood in his constituency. I understand that he will hold a meeting shortly with some major Ukrainian defence industrialists, which he has kindly invited me to, and I look forward to engaging with him and those companies soon.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Last September, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) announced £2.3 billion to be made available for Ukraine in this financial year. We are now in another September, with a new Secretary of State. When can we expect that sum of money to be made available to Ukraine?
James Heappey
The Prime Minister engages with world leaders all the time to discuss what is needed in Ukraine, and he has an extraordinarily close relationship with President Zelensky. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and Prime Minister Johnson delivered on their commitments. The Prime Minister continues to do exactly the same; he will be at the Dispatch Box in about an hour and perhaps Ukraine might be mentioned.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will agree that our veterans make some of the best role models in society. Will he applaud my constituent Bill Cooksey, who at the age of 102 completed the Great North Run this weekend on behalf of NHS charities?
Dr Murrison
What can I say? I certainly congratulate Bill on completing the Great North Run at such an extraordinary age. I admire him hugely, and I congratulate him.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The previous Secretary of State promised that he would come to David Brown Santasalo in Huddersfield to see the wonderful work that the company does producing the defence equipment that we need. Will one of the team be able to fulfil that promise?
James Cartlidge
It is always a pleasure to engage with the hon. Gentleman. If I cannot visit that specific company, I intend to hold forums for small and medium-sized enterprises around the country—the next one is in Wales, but we will certainly hold them in his part of the world—and I will let him know the details.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
While Ukraine continues to combat Putin’s aggression on the battlefield, there is no let up in Russia’s nefarious campaign of espionage and subversion against western democracies. That threat, and the so-called grey zone, spans the public, private and defence sectors, aiming to continually challenge our critical national infrastructure capabilities. What work is the MOD doing across Government Departments, and the private and public sectors, to combat hybrid threats?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is helpful that the Deputy Prime Minister is sitting on the Front Bench as I answer her question, because he leads the necessary cross-Government effort, of which defence plays an enormous part. The National Security Act 2023 has been passed, as has the National Security Investment Act 2021, and there is £2.6 billion of investment through the national cyber strategy 2022. Defence supports His Majesty’s Government’s activities, applying defence levers to protect UK crucial interests from state threats by denying and deferring adversary attack.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One of the greatest problems that my veteran constituents have is housing accommodation. It is as scarce as hen’s teeth, as we would say back home. What discussions has the Minister had with the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland to secure funding and housing for veterans who have just finished service or are retiring?
Dr Murrison
Clearly, we want to improve service accommodation all the time. However, 97% of service accommodation meets or exceeds the decent home standard. That is admirable compared with the record of many local authorities. We are investing in accommodation, and it is improving all the time. I very much regret the occasional report of accommodation that falls short of the mark, and we seek to rectify it as soon as we can.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
We have heard this afternoon how important the continuity of education allowance is for service families. Does the Minister assess that Labour’s proposed attack on private schools will make it easier or harder to educate service children?
Dr Murrison
It would certainly make it far more expensive. It would also threaten small schools like Warminster School in my constituency, which relies very much on service families. I just reflect on the sacrifices made by all people I know who choose to send their children to independent schools, and in particular members of the defence community who are of course required to make a substantial contribution to their children’s education in the event that they choose to educate them in the independent sector.
Security Update
(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Oliver Dowden)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on claims relating to an ongoing counter-terrorism police investigation that were reported in The Sunday Times yesterday, Sunday 10 September. The story alleged that two individuals, including a parliamentary researcher, had been arrested on charges of conducting espionage on behalf of China.
These are serious allegations, and it is right that they are being thoroughly investigated by the police and relevant agencies. We must not hamper their work or prejudice any future legal processes by what we say today—as I believe, Mr Speaker, you said at the beginning of today’s proceedings. As you would expect me to say, it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on any specific aspect of the active investigation itself. I would, however, point the House to what the Metropolitan police said in their own statement:
“The investigation is being carried out by officers from the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, which has responsibility for investigations relating to allegations of Official Secrets Act and espionage-related offences”.
Of course, any decision on whether to proceed with a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, and related legislation, would be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.
It remains an absolute priority for the Government to take all necessary steps to protect the United Kingdom from any foreign state activity which seeks to undermine our national security, prosperity and democratic values. The Government have been clear that China represents a systemic challenge to the United Kingdom and to our values. That has been evidenced in China’s continued disregard for universal human rights and international commitments in Xinjiang, its erasure of dissenting voices and stifling of opposition under its new national security law in Hong Kong, and disturbing reports of Chinese coercion and intimidation in the South China sea. We are clear-eyed about that challenge, and we must be able to look the Chinese in the eye and call out unacceptable behaviour directly, just as our Prime Minister was able to do this with Premier Li at the G20 summit in New Delhi this weekend—an approach that has also been taken consistently by our Five Eyes allies.
Actions speak louder than words, and that is why I took the decision to instruct Departments to cease deployment of all surveillance equipment subject to China’s national intelligence law from sensitive Government sites in November last year. It is one of the reasons why I banned TikTok from Government devices; the Government investigated and called out the so-called Chinese overseas police service stations and, as the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), set out in a statement to this House in June, instructed the Chinese embassy to close them; we significantly reduced Chinese involvement in the UK’s civil nuclear sector, including taking ownership of China’s stake in the Sizewell C nuclear power project; and, as Digital Secretary, I took the decision to ban Huawei from our 5G networks.
This afternoon the Procurement Bill is being debated in the other place. The Bill will include national security debarment provisions that will enable us to act when we see malign influence in our public procurement. In taking this approach, we are aligned with our Five Eyes allies and other G7 partners—indeed, every single G7 partner.
The UK will deploy, again, an aircraft carrier to the Indo-Pacific in 2025; we have announced AUKUS, a new security partnership that will promote a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and stable; and we will work with Italy and Japan through the global combat air programme to adapt and respond to the security threats of the future, through an unprecedented international aerospace coalition.
These Houses of Parliament stand as a monument to the freedoms of expression and belief that underpin our values, but just as these institutions have provided the paradigm for so many modern democracies, there are still those who fear such freedoms, and who seek to undermine them and to interfere in our society. We maintain constant vigilance in our efforts to understand and root out that interference, and we will always take action to address it, whatever its source.
In 2022, the Government established the defending democracy taskforce, a group that works to co-ordinate across Government to protect the integrity of our democracy from threats of foreign interference. It is engaging across Government, with Parliament, the UK’s intelligence community, the devolved Administrations, local authorities, the private sector and civil society on the full range of threats facing our democratic institutions. Those threats include foreign interference in the electoral process, disinformation, physical and cyber threats to democratic institutions and those who represent them, foreign interference in public offices, political parties and our universities, and transnational repression in the United Kingdom.
Earlier this year, the Government passed the National Security Act 2023, which has overhauled legislation applicable to espionage, sabotage, and any persons acting for foreign powers against the safety and interest of the United Kingdom. The measures in the Act will enable our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to deter, detect, and disrupt the full range of modern-day threats, including threats from China. New offences in the Act will enable the disruption of illegitimate influence conducted for, or on behalf of, foreign states, whether designed to advance their interests or to harm the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Government will do whatever it takes to protect our national security and this nation's democratic institutions, which have stood for centuries as a beacon of liberty—wherever the threat may come from.
I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and for advance sight of it.
Maintaining national security in the face of threats to our values and our democracy is the first duty of any Government, in respect of which Labour stands ready always to work on a cross-party basis to keep our country safe. I pay tribute to all those in our intelligence and security services and police, and those across Government and beyond, who work to protect our national security on the anniversary of the awful attacks of 9/11. As we remember those lost, we are in no doubt about the seriousness of the work that they do.
We recognise, too, the seriousness of the allegations involving espionage on behalf of China at the heart of our democracy. It is essential that the police, the intelligence agencies and the justice system are able to do their jobs, and we must support them as they do so. However, we need to know more about what action the Government are taking against attempts by other states to interfere in our democracy and undermine our security. MI5 issued an interference alert about the Chinese Communist party attempting to influence Parliament 20 months ago. The Security Service and others have also raised wider concerns. The Minister referred to the Prime Minister raising strong concerns with China about unacceptable interference. Did the Prime Minister do so at the time of those arrests, or has he only done so now, since they have been made public?
The Government set up the defending democracy taskforce to look at foreign interference, but what has it actually done? Is the Minister on it? Has it produced a report for the National Security Council as was promised? Has it looked at vetting levels and delays? The Government opposed the Lords amendment to the National Security Bill that was put forward to introduce stronger checks on donations to political parties, to ensure no foreign influence, and they opposed Labour’s proposal to close the loophole on shell companies. Has the taskforce looked at those measures? Why is it not acting in that area?
What is being done about national security prisoners? It beggars belief that Daniel Khalife was charged with national security offences but was able to escape under a van. Can the Minister confirm that even though this individual had already evaded arrest for three weeks when the police first tried to apprehend him, he still ended up in a category B prison? Can he also confirm reports that in 2019 another prisoner was able to escape from Wandsworth prison, also by hiding underneath a van? Has the review been completed of all national security prisoners—those on remand and those convicted —to see what level of prison security is in place? If not, why not?
I want to ask the Minister about the wider issue of the risks to our national security from other states. He has rightly taken action on sensitive surveillance equipment and I am glad that Ministers have accepted Labour’s proposals on procurement. In his statement, he rightly talked of the systemic challenge that China poses, including on human rights, but the statement says nothing about the work of the investment security unit. What is it doing? Nor does the statement say anything about the comprehensive approach we need to the risks to our critical national infrastructure, even though the head of MI5 has given a series of warnings and the Intelligence and Security Committee was extremely critical in its report in July, warning of the lack of a proper strategy on China and of short-termism. We need to engage with China on climate change and global issues, but we also need to be robust about defending our national security. That is why the shadow Foreign Secretary has called for a full audit of China’s relationship and why we have supported the National Security Act 2023 but also raised concerns about Iran pursuing kidnap and murder threats and Russia pursuing cyber-attacks.
We recognise that after 9/11 and the appalling terror attacks on 7/7, the country came together. The then Labour Government worked on a major counter-terror strategy—the Contest strategy—involving everyone across Government, the police, the intelligence agencies, local government and the private sector. The Contest strategy has endured and has strong cross-party support, but the Government have been warned for years about rising state challenges, so where is the Contest strategy for state threats? We will support the Government in producing one, and a Labour Government would work cross-party to produce one, but where is it? We need a Contest strategy on state risks, state challenges and state threats to protect our national security. National security is too important to ignore warnings; we need urgent action to defend our national security.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the overall constructive approach with which she has addressed this issue. It is important that we treat issues such as this on a cross-party basis in defence of our democratic institutions, and it is timely that this statement should be made on the anniversary of 9/11. I will endeavour to address the points that she has raised, and I will be happy to write to her on any points that I inadvertently miss out.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary regularly raise with their Chinese opposite numbers Chinese interference in democratic institutions. This is an ongoing approach that has been going on for some time.
The right hon. Lady asked about the defending democracy taskforce, which is led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security. It reports into the National Security Council, on which I sit, and we receive regular updates on the work that he is doing, working with Departments across Government, not least the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is responsible for large elements of electoral integrity, the devolved Administrations, local authorities and other matters. The purpose of the taskforce is to bring together all those different elements to pursue a whole-of-Government and whole-of-society approach when addressing those threats.
The principal purpose of the investment security unit is to provide advice to me, as the quasi-judicial decision maker, in respect of acquisitions that may invoke national security questions. I take advice from the unit on whether the Government should intervene, and we have issued 15 directions in respect of acquisitions in the past year. That is to say we are asking companies to take action, the hardest being to block the acquisition, but it could be some other remedial action. More than half of those directions are in respect of Chinese companies.
The right hon. Lady is entirely right to raise the question of critical national infrastructure, on which I have worked very closely with the head of MI5 and others. Countries around the world are looking again at their critical national infrastructure, particularly in relation to the threat of cyber-crime, which often has a blurred link with hostile states. I take cyber-crime very seriously, and I chair regular meetings on it. We are constantly upping the work we do, against a background in which the external threat continues to rise.
The Government will very shortly respond to the ISC’s report. The draft is with Ministers, and it is about to be signed off. I hope it will be with the House this week.
The right hon. Lady rightly raises points about Iran and Russia, particularly in relation to cyber but also across a whole range of issues. As part of our overall approach, we have done two things. First, we have tried to give the agencies a public face with which to interface with businesses and private citizens in a whole-of-society approach. For example, GCHQ now works through the National Cyber Security Centre to advise businesses and individuals on cyber-risks. Equally, we have just created the National Protective Security Authority, which essentially enables MI5 to interface with businesses and individuals on protective security. Those agencies, working through the Cabinet Office and particularly with the Home Office and the Foreign Office, work across the range of issues that particularly arise in relation to Iran and Russia.
Although we take this investigation very seriously, and it clearly should be conducted independently, I reassure the right hon. Lady and the House that the Government are taking a whole-of-society approach across all these issues to strengthen our defences against rising threats.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Without referring to any specific case, may I gently remind the Government that their initial response to the ISC’s substantial and wide-ranging report on the national security threat from China, published just two months ago, was to suggest that our findings might be out of date? Will the Deputy Prime Minister therefore confirm that the full Government response, when it comes—we gather it is coming very soon—will set out specific steps to address the threat of Chinese interference, particularly within our democratic system?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The short answer is yes. I have reviewed the response, and I am content that it does exactly that. It will be with my right hon. Friend shortly.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is timely that we are having a security update today. My thoughts and the thoughts of my colleagues are with all those impacted by 9/11 on its anniversary.
I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the issues relating to sensitive Government sites and cameras, but Members on both sides of the House had to ask questions on Hikvision for months before the Government took any action. Will they commit to acting more quickly in future, and will the Procurement Bill, as he states, allow that to happen?
I am glad to hear that the response to the ISC report is coming. Will the Government also commit to implementing the recommendations of the ISC report on Russian interference in British politics? Hopefully that response will also come soon.
To turn to some specific questions, when did the Deputy Prime Minister himself learn of these allegations and arrests? Why did MPs only learn of this from The Times? Will the Government institute, as soon as possible, a review into the decision-making process that led to MPs not being told, in order that such critical updates are given to MPs in future and that this decision-making process is never allowed to happen again?
Mr Speaker
Order. We have to be very careful here. This is a major security issue and it would be wrong to expect to break all that in order to brief MPs. The MPs who needed to be told were told and worked very closely on this. Please, be very careful. I think my earlier statement addressed some of the points, but, if need be, we can re-address things.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the first point that the hon. Lady raised, we take an evidence-based approach to action. It is right that Ministers take action not on a hunch or an intuition, but on the basis of detailed analysis provided to us by the agencies and by others. That is precisely the approach we took in relation to Hikvision and other China-based companies subject to China’s national security laws.
On when I or others learned about this, as Mr Speaker said in a number of the points he made, Members would not expect me to give the House a running commentary on intelligence briefings that I have received, but the House would expect me to be briefed on all matters.
In conclusion, I will make a broader point about parliamentary security. We have the Parliamentary Security Department and it works very closely with the agencies to support Members of Parliament, including with general advice. If Members have specific concerns, they can raise those with the PSD. That is the correct approach, which respects the division between Parliament and Government, and the independence of the House.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
These are extremely worrying reports about the level of infiltration of Chinese-supported forces into our democracy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to recognise that China is the largest threat, both to the world and to the UK, on freedom and democracy? Does he not agree that the Government should designate it as such?
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the work she did in this space, particularly when she was Foreign Secretary? She is absolutely right to say that China represents a systemic challenge to our interests and values, and it is also, for example, the No. 1 state-based threat to our economic security. The Government are absolutely clear-eyed about the threats that this nation faces and we are robust in taking action. Indeed, that is why I personally took the decisions in respect of banning Huawei from our 5G networks, and in respect of Chinese CCTV technology and TikTok. We will continue to take whatever steps are necessary, based on appropriate advice, to provide that protection for our nation and our democratic institutions.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
A key part of democracy is the ability to scrutinise the Executive. As the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee said, No. 10’s response to our China report was to pooh-pooh it and say that it was out of date. I understand that the Government response was due today but has now been put off. The defending democracy taskforce has been mentioned. We have asked for an update on that but are met with radio silence. The Prime Minister has on his desk our report on international partnerships. He has had it on his desk for nearly 10 months now. He usually has 10 days in which to respond, so when will we get that signed off? May I just say to the Deputy Prime Minister that if he is talking about security and democracy in the terms he has, that has to include proper scrutiny? There is a long list of examples of where this Government are trying to avoid it.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Proper scrutiny is provided by the Intelligence and Security Committee. I certainly take the reports produced by the ISC very seriously—[Interruption.] I am fully aware of the membership of the Committee, to reassure Opposition Members. It is precisely because we take the recommendations so seriously that the Committee will receive a comprehensive response addressing all these points, including an update on the defending democracy taskforce.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is appalling news that we have a potential espionage cell operating in and around Westminster. As a sanctioned individual alongside many of my colleagues, I am particularly perturbed by the news. Notwithstanding that, this should not perhaps come as a surprise, as the ISC, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), has warned that the Government were ill-prepared and that the necessary security measures were not available.
I ask the Secretary of State a specific question: when was the Foreign Secretary told about the investigation? Was it before he went to Beijing? If he went to Beijing with this knowledge, did he raise it with his counterpart there? It is important to know that. With respect, it is no good coming to the Dispatch Box and telling us that we do not talk about such matters; the Prime Minister did so yesterday, and the investigation is not complete. What did the Foreign Secretary do?
I say to the Secretary of State that the problem lies in the mess we have got into over whether we define China as a threat or not? If it is a threat, why do we not call it that, take the action that is necessary to deal with it on that basis, and sanction some people?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend, who is a former Cabinet Minister and current Privy Counsellor, knows full well that the Government do not provide a running commentary on updates and intelligence received by Ministers. I can assure him that the Foreign Secretary regularly raises electoral interference and interference with our democratic institutions with his Chinese opposite number. Specific cases, particularly those that are subject to an ongoing police investigation, would not, as is generally the case, be raised. On the wider principle, we have been robust and clear-eyed in addressing and raising these points with our Chinese opposite numbers.
On the action we have taken, I set out the steps that I took in respect of TikTok and Huawei, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s support for the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, which we got to a very good place. There is not just that Act, but the National Security Act 2023, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and the deployment of the carrier fleet. All those things have happened in the past short number of years. They are evidence of the seriousness with which the Government take this threat.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister said that he holds the Intelligence and Security Committee in very high regard. On that basis, will he commit to the recommendation that it made in its recent report on China about updating the guidelines of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments in relation to intelligence and security, particularly referencing China? How will he ensure that they are enforced?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said in answer to a previous question, the full response to the ISC will be coming shortly. An important point has been raised in respect of ACOBA, for which I have overall ministerial responsibility in the Cabinet Office. I will take that away and discuss it with the chair of that committee, Sir Eric Pickles, formerly of this House.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and I support the action that the Government are taking. On the issue of transparency and accountability, will the data regarding the volume of prosecutions and convictions under existing legislation and the new National Security Act be collated and made available to the House so that we can track the scale of hostile state action? Also, have the Government decided on any necessary changes to the memorandum of understanding with the ISC, as they are required to at least consider under section 93 of that Act?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not think I have had chance from the Dispatch Box to pay a genuine, heartfelt tribute to my immediate predecessor as Deputy Prime Minister. Having done the job for a few months, I have a particular appreciation of all the work that my right hon. Friend did when he was in that post.
In respect of the volume of prosecutions and convictions, we seek to be as transparent as we can be with the House. I am sure it is something that we can take away and look at with a desire to do as my right hon. Friend asks. I cannot give him a firm commitment at the Dispatch Box, but if it is possible, I shall seek to do so.
We keep the MOU with the ISC under review. We do not have any current plans to change it, but we keep it under review.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Yet again, we are watching the horse disappear over the horizon and shutting the stable door behind it. Every time we act to take on China, everything the Deputy Prime Minister boasts about is always stated reactively. Just for once, could we get ahead of the curve and take action in relation to genomics and, as I and others have been urging for months now, designate it as part of our critical national infrastructure, so that in a few months’ time, we are not again having to explain another failure?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that he did serve in government and in Cabinet for five years, from 2010 to 2015, so he and other Members of his party need to bear some responsibility for the decisions made, although I would think that they would take pride in the decisions that we took. More recently, under this majority Conservative Government, we have taken a huge range of steps, including passing the National Security Act and the National Security and Investment Act.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point about genomics and its relevance to critical national infrastructure. It is not currently designated as such, but in my role in the Cabinet Office, I keep the register of critical national infrastructure under review, and I am exploring the matter.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I thank you personally, Mr Speaker, for the care and support you have shown to those of us who have been sanctioned by China? We are in the frontline of this threat, but I have to say that neither before nor after these revelations has any of us been offered a briefing by the parliamentary security authorities, or by the Foreign Office or Home Office. In fact, I found out more about this character from my son, who happened to be at university with them, than from anything I have been told formally.
I do not want to mention the current incident, but do want to note that it is now a year on from when MI5 took the almost unprecedented step of issuing a security service interference alert about a character working within Parliament—for which there were no consequences. It is about a year on from the revelations about the activities of the Chinese consul general in Manchester, who thought it was his job to attack demonstrators—for which there were no expulsions, no consequences. It is months on from the recent revelations about the activities of the Confucius institutes, which the Government pledged to abolish; there have been no consequences, no abolition—again, nothing has happened. And it is just a couple of weeks since the Foreign Secretary promised that he would take up the case of the sanctioned MPs and of Jimmy Lai with the Chinese Foreign Minister, yet he came away with nothing—there have been no consequences.
Is not the problem that, for all the tough talk, there are no consequences and the Chinese know that there will be no consequences? May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this: will China be in the enhanced tier of the foreign agents registration scheme?
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I deal with the specific question first, and then reflect on the wider points? We are currently reviewing the countries in the enhanced tier. I think there is a strong case to be made, but my hon. Friend would not expect me to make that announcement from the Dispatch Box before we have gone through the proper process.
On my hon. Friend’s wider points about the parliamentary security directorate, we as a Government stand ready to provide any further support that MPs feel they require. If my hon. Friend feels that he requires further briefing, I am very happy to help to facilitate that with the House.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
May I extend my genuine sympathy to the two Conservative colleagues who appear to have been targeted by a suspected Chinese spy who was employed in Parliament and paid for out of public funds? I do know what they are feeling. The House will be aware—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure that is the case. I think that is quite a bit of speculation. I would stick to a general question rather than trying to go into the details of what may have happened.
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did say “suspected”.
The House will be aware that the subject of the security alert last year, Christine Lee, was never arrested, has never been charged with spying or, indeed, any other offence, and was said by the previous Home Secretary to have done nothing criminal. However, there is a court case pending. I understand that Ms Lee has taken out a civil suit against the Government; will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on when that case is likely to be heard and what the Government hope to learn from it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am not quite sure what to say in response to that question. In the light of the Lee case and others, that is precisely why we have taken enhanced powers through the new National Security Act. Although I have to hold back from commenting on individual cases, I am confident that we have much more robust powers under that legislation that will enable us to act.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In its China report, the ISC highlighted the efforts of the Chinese Communist party to influence, co-opt or coerce into silence potential critics of its regime in the UK. We acknowledged that the Government are waking up to this threat and taking it more seriously, but I highlight to the Minister the fact that we need more urgency. In particular, I highlight the fact that for years the ISC has been saying that we need a foreign agents registration scheme, and one is now on its way; does the Minister agree that it would have been helpful had it been in operation and on the statute book at the time of the relevant events we are considering today?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises some very important points, but I just observe that—this applies to a lot of the questions—we have a relationship with China that is very different from the one that we had just a few years ago. It is important that we are not naive about China, that we are clear-eyed about protecting our national security, that we are clear-eyed about the threats that it represents and that we are robust in taking action. My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the foreign agents registration scheme; the secondary legislation under that will come before the House very shortly, which will enable us to take the relevant actions under that legislation.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Actually, the people who have been really clear-sighted about China have mostly been on the Back Benches in this House, on either side and including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and some of them have been sanctioned. I have been delighted to work with two successive Chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to whom I pay enormous tribute for the outspoken way in which they have pushed the Government towards a more sensible policy on China.
My anxiety is that we still flip-flop all over the place. This year already we have seen several Foreign Secretaries, apart from anything else, and we have seen them wanting to suck up to China one moment and the next wanting to have robust words with China. It simply does not work. Why oh why have we still not declared that China is a threat to UK national security? Why oh why have we still not seen even the redacted version of the China strategy which, according to the Government, the FCDO developed but which has not even been shared with other Government ministries?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but I simply do not accept this slightly over-the-top characterisation of the Government’s approach. We have been consistent. First, we must protect our national interests in relation to China. That is why we passed the legislation that I have outlined, why I banned Huawei from our 5G networks and why we banned Chinese technology from surveillance equipment and other matters.
Secondly, it is important that we align with our allies around the world. I spend a lot of time on this and know that the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Security and others work very closely with nations around the world, particularly but not confined to the Five Eyes, to make sure that we share our understanding of Chinese intent and take co-ordinated action to protect us, not least through the military
It is also the case, though, that we must engage with the Chinese, as we do with many other countries around the world with which we do not share a number of their values. It is not a realistic position to take to say that we should entirely cut off from engagement with China. We should engage with China but be absolutely clear about where we disagree with it and clear-eyed in protecting our national security, which is precisely the approach we are taking.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I cannot wait to be able to discuss the merits of this case, although I understand the situation now. I want to raise a couple of issues with the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government are moving, they have done lots of new things and we are getting more coherence, but I do not understand why they keep thinking that we either bury our heads in the sand or effectively go soft on elements of the relationship with China. We can debate with and engage with China all we like, but we can also do so in an increasingly robust way that answers the threat it presents towards us.
Specifically, the Government keep avoiding the argument about the growing economic dependency that all western nations have on China. That dependency will mean that in the case of war in the Pacific in two or five years’ time, which is what President Xi is planning for—he has said, “We are retaking Taiwan by 2027.”—we will not be in a position to do anything about it without collapsing the global economy. Effectively, in the next few years, our hands will have been tied by economic dependency. Every time I raise that issue, the Government are not even willing to produce an annual statement on it. Please can we take this issue more seriously? It is at the heart of security, and no freedom of action means we have no security.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend and he and I have discussed these issues on many occasions. I believe we are taking precisely that robust approach. The question of economic dependency is precisely why we passed the National Security and Investment Act 2021, which enables me as a Minister to take decisions to intervene where we feel that the acquiring of technology by any state could undermine our resilience and our ability to protect ourselves, or could enhance the capability of other states. I have taken the decision to intervene on a number of occasions, and more than half the orders we have issued have been in respect of Chinese-related companies.
On the resilience of supply chains, that is why the Prime Minister established the National Secretary Council resilience sub-committee, building on work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), the former Deputy Prime Minister. My hon. Friend is totally right to raise this issue, but I can assure him that the Government take this very seriously and are acting.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister remind the House of December 2016, when the then Prime Minister David Cameron was in the Plough pub in Cadsden with President Xi? We were all urged to be very positive towards China. Indeed, when I expressed worries about the takeover by China of a global company based in Huddersfield, I was told to go away and be quiet. I have also consistently asked for an audit of how much of our British industry and interests are owned by the Chinese—a simple audit—but we have never had a positive reaction, or any reaction, to that suggestion. When will the Government do that?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that we have a changed approach to China, because the facts on China have changed. With its conduct in relation to Hong Kong and the national security law that it has passed, the increasing evidence of abuses in Xinjiang province and the increased aggression in relation to the South China sea, there is no room for any naivety about China. We have to be clear-eyed and we are being clear-eyed. That is why we have passed a host of legislation. It is why—to answer his point about what is owned by China—for the first time, we have now taken the power to intervene on transactions, whether in relation to China or to other countries, in the interest of national security and why I have not hesitated as a Minister to do so.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. Does he agree that this latest episode shows clearly that it is vital that we do all we can to protect our democracy and democratic institutions? It is right that the Government continue with the “protect, align and engage” strategy, but actions speak louder than words, and the Chinese communist state needs to hear very loudly that we will do all we can to protect our democracy.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. That is precisely what the Prime Minister did at the G20 summit with Premier Li at the weekend, and why we have introduced a wide range of legislation to address threats, including, among many other pieces of legislation, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill in relation to academia.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The integrated review refresh was announced on 13 March this year. At the time, it was welcomed that funding would be doubled for building Government expertise on China, but we have since learned that the doubling was from a base of 170 civil servants learning Mandarin in the previous year, of whom just 20 were to attend language immersion. Given that the UK hosts more than 150,000 Chinese students learning the English language and about British culture, does that announcement of perhaps 300 training places for British Government officials not now sound a little modest?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, the integrated review refresh was clear about China being the No. 1 state-based threat to our economic security. The hon. Gentleman cites the foreign language training; that is just one element of the action that we have taken to increase our capacity in relation to China. Clearly, he would not expect me to comment on what the agencies are doing in respect of China, but I can assure him that within the Cabinet Office and its structures, we are constantly increasing the amount of resource that we put in, as is the Foreign Office.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for wanting to strike the right balance. I very much welcome his recognition that we have come a long way from the ill-fated idea of a golden age with China, which was only eight years ago. Much of what has happened has been predicable and predicted, and we continue to predict what will happen, as he has heard this afternoon. Why are the Government so squeamish not just about talking about threats from China, but about calling China a threat? What is the difference between a challenge and a threat?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the evolution and strengthening of our approach to China—I will not add to what I have said on that. We continue to enhance our capability in relation to China. I have outlined a number of the measures that we take; we continue to keep all those things under review. I want to reassure him and other Members on both sides of the House that we are absolutely clear about the threat that China represents, but at the same time, it is right that we engage with China, and that is the approach that we are taking, alongside working closely with our allies. I think that is a sensible and balanced approach that in no way underestimates the scale of the challenge in respect of China, as has been set out in numerous documents.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
An attack on this place, including on Members, by any hostile Government intent on interfering with our democracy and its structures is a direct affront to British democracy itself. Given that several Members of this place have been sanctioned by China, can the Deputy Prime Minister give the House assurances that steps are in place to support and protect Members from hostile Governments, and will he make it clear that there are consequences, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) outlined?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, I am very happy to give that assurance. Of course, we respect the independence of this House and provide support indirectly to the House through the parliamentary security directorate. I can assure the hon. Lady that we provide a considerable amount of resource to the House in respect of this threat.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend. On this Chinese matter, he will face countervailing pressures and arguments on the economic side and on the security side. In his statement, he made great play of the six welcome measures that the Government have taken to toughen Britain’s stance towards the Chinese Government. Can he give the House any evidence that the Chinese Government have altered their behaviour in any way at all in response to that tough response from the British Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is never the case that the United Kingdom Government trade off economic security for national security. National security always comes first in the approach we take, and we have seen action in response to the measures we have taken: for example, we have blocked Chinese acquisitions of companies in this country through the National Security and Investment Act 2021, so we are biting directly.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
How many requests have the Government received from security services’ chiefs in the past 12 months for additional resources to combat the Chinese security threat, and have all those requests been met in full?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment specifically on the agencies, but I can give him a general assurance that we have provided them with the necessary resources they need to combat all the threats that this nation faces.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
This unsavoury episode serves as a reminder for all of us in this place of the threats we face, not just from state interference but from a variety of malign actors. Can I please ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether we are doing enough to think about our physical security, surveillance and counter-surveillance, malware and IT on our phones and other Trojan viruses, and governance of MPs’ security?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise all of those points. It is the case, not just in respect of China but also of Russia—particularly in light of the Russia-Ukraine war—and, indeed, Iran and other hostile states that the threat landscape is increasing, and the Government have to continually increase their actions. Through the creation of the National Cyber Security Centre and its work with GCHQ, we are able to constantly increase our action in respect of cyber-threats, malware and the other threats that my hon. Friend highlighted, and in respect of physical security, we have a mirror in the National Protective Security Authority working with MI5. In turn, the agencies also work with the Parliamentary Security Department, which deals directly with threats to Members of Parliament and is supported by those agencies and others.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Chinese Communist party has shown once again that it will stop at nothing to get its way. The Deputy Prime Minister has said today that he realises there are serious issues and that this is a systemic challenge, but he would not come out with a statement that it is a serious threat and being treated as such. The CCP is infiltrating our academia, and a lot of people right across these Benches feel very uneasy. Actions speak louder than words, and the Government need to back up words with actions—strong actions—and give us the impression that they are not being dragged by the heels all the time. We are constantly having to raise these things, and there is no confidence that we are treating the CCP as an absolutely serious threat, which is what it is. We are playing cricket while the CCP has the machetes out. Please, please take some urgent action.
The Deputy Prime Minister
We have been totally clear-eyed about the threats represented by China, and have been robust in the action we have taken. The hon. Lady talks about higher education: we have passed legislation in respect of higher education, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. That Act requires greater transparency about higher education institutions’ sources of funding, including from overseas states and hostile states. We are taking exactly the kind of action that she requests.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
At what was then the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I saw at first hand the now Deputy Prime Minister oversee an increasingly robust attitude to China in terms of economic security, and telecoms security in particular. To some extent, I wonder if that is why we see this growth in unwelcome attention from China. However, can the Deputy Prime Minister reassure the House that we will continue to take that increasingly robust approach, particularly when it comes to emergent technologies such as artificial intelligence and some of the other increasingly high-tech areas where Britain excels in the world, and where we will continue to attract even more interest from unfriendly states?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience from his time as a Minister, and we worked together on these issues. Telecoms security is precisely an example of the approach. First, we put national security before economic security. On a purely economic interest basis, we should not have removed Huawei’s equipment from our networks. We put national security first, and I was transparent with the House about that. We also took the powers in the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, which is the legislation required to provide that protection of our national security. That is yet more evidence of how the Government are taking a more robust approach and increasing the amount of activity with every passing month and year.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. I am sensitive to the restrictions on both the questions and the answers, but we know—these facts are in the public domain—that two individuals have been arrested on suspicion of working for a hostile power and that they were parliamentary passholders. Their passes will have been sponsored by individuals who are probably in this Chamber, and they passed the security vetting for a parliamentary pass. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that in due course—not today—an important question will have to be answered: were they recruited by the hostile power before or after they became passholders?
Mr Speaker
Order. We must be careful what detail we go into, and I know the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of that.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman made a number of suppositions in his question that are subject to an ongoing police investigation. When that investigation has concluded and indeed if the Crown Prosecution Service decides to take any action under the Official Secrets Act, there will be a time for this House to debate the lessons from that, and the Government will of course—with you, Mr Speaker— help to facilitate the time for that to happen.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
In the statement, the Deputy Prime Minister very helpfully refers to the “erasure of dissenting voices” and the “stifling of opposition” under the new national security law in Hong Kong. In whatever dialogue now takes place with the Chinese, can I ask again that the cases of my two trade union colleagues, Lee Cheuk Yan and Carol Ng Man-yee, who were leaders of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, be raised again? They have been in detention since 2021, and are now facing lengthy prison sentences purely for standing up for democratic rights and trade union rights.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Ministers raised the general principle of China’s national security law, its application to Hong Kong and the suppression of liberties in Hong Kong in very robust terms with their Chinese opposite numbers, and will raise individual cases. I am happy to pass that on to the Foreign Secretary, if the right hon. Member has not done so already, to make sure that those individual cases are raised.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
These allegations are concerning, but sadly they are not the first of their type. We have heard about the sanctions against MPs and the activity at the Manchester consulate. I have been ticked off more than once by the consulate in my own constituency because I said things it did not like, and I have been filmed by a drone speaking at a Chinese rally in the city. In July, the Intelligence and Security Committee said there was a lack of clear strategy from the Government. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that that might be responsible for these repeated attempts, and is it not time that the Government had that clear strategy?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, the integrated review refresh was very clear about the approach we take in respect of China. We are clear that it represents the No. 1 state- based thread to our economic security. It also represents a range of other threats and a systemic challenge to our interests and our values. Ministers have raised Chinese interference with democratic processes, and any interference with the conduct of Members of Parliament is totally unacceptable and we will not hesitate in raising it.
G20 Summit
(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
Mr Speaker, the whole House will join me in sending our sympathies to the people of Morocco following the devastating earthquake. Our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, the injured and those bravely engaged in rescue efforts. We also remember the victims and loved ones of the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States 22 years ago today, including many British citizens.
I have just returned from the G20 summit in India. For the record, let me declare that, as is a matter of public record, I and my family are of Indian origin, and my wife and her family are Indian citizens with financial interests in India. At the summit I had three aims: first, to increase diplomatic pressure on Russia and call out its shameful disruption of global food supplies in the Black sea; secondly, to show the world that democracies such as the United Kingdom, not authoritarian regimes, are leading the fight on global challenges such as development and climate change; and thirdly, to strengthen ties and forge new partnerships to deliver jobs, growth and security for the British people.
The world faces a moment of danger, volatility and increasingly rapid change, but even as most G20 leaders came together in Delhi in a spirit of co-operation, one did not. For two years now, Putin has lacked the courage to face his G20 peers. Day after day, his actions cause horrendous suffering in Ukraine, violating the United Nations Charter, threatening European security, and disrupting global energy supplies. The spill-overs have driven up prices here at home, and they are hurting people all around the world. Russia’s withdrawal from the Black sea grain initiative exposes its willingness to spread that suffering further. While Putin stalls, making unmeetable demands, he is destroying Ukraine’s ports and grain silos. In just one month, Russia has destroyed over 270,000 tonnes of grain—enough to feed 1 million people for a year. I can tell the House today that, thanks to declassified intelligence, we know that on 24 August with multiple missiles the Russian military targeted a civilian cargo ship in the Black sea, demonstrating just how desperate Putin is.
At the G20, leaders united in calling out the “human suffering” caused by Putin’s war. Ukraine has the right to export its goods through international waters, and it has the moral right to ship grain that is helping to feed the world. The UK is working with partners to get grain to those who need it most. We will provide £3 million for the World Food Programme, building on earlier contributions to President Zelensky’s “Grain from Ukraine” initiative. We are using our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to monitor Russian activity in the Black sea, so that we can call it out if we see that Russia is preparing further attacks on civilian shipping or infrastructure, and so that we can attribute attacks should they happen. Later this year, we are hosting a UK global food security summit to put in place solutions for the long term.
I spoke to my friend President Zelensky just before the summit. Backed by our support, Ukraine’s counter-offensive is making hard-won progress. We will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, until we see a “just and durable peace” that respects its sovereignty and territorial integrity. That is the only possible outcome to Putin’s illegal war, and Ukraine, with our support, will prevail.
On my second aim, we showed at the G20 that it is the UK and our partners, not authoritarian actors, that offer the best solution to the global challenges we face. We are playing our part to stabilise the global economy, control inflation, and fuel future growth. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show the UK is leading the way, growing faster out of the pandemic than any other major European economy, and demolishing the false narratives we have heard from the other side of this House. We are also leading the way on development assistance. Instead of loading countries with debt, we are calling for fundamental reforms of the World Bank. When I met the World Bank president, I underlined the UK’s desire to see the Bank become more efficient and responsible, sweating its balance sheet to deliver more support where it is needed.
We are also leading calls at the G20 to safely harness new technologies to support growth and development, and we are leading action to tackle climate change. While some in Westminster denigrate the UK’s record on climate issues, out there in the world we are rightly seen as a global leader. We have cut emissions faster than any other G7 country, with low-carbon sources now providing over half our electricity. We are providing billions for the global energy transition, including through our pioneering Just Energy Transition Partnerships. And at the G20 I made a record commitment of over £1.6 billion for the Green Climate Fund—the single biggest international climate pledge that the UK has ever made.
Finally, my most important aim in Delhi was to deliver on the priorities of the British people. In a changing world, we are using our Brexit freedoms to build new relationships with economies around the world. Since I became Prime Minister, we have joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—the most dynamic trading bloc in the world. We have launched new partnerships with Canada, Australia, Japan and the US, covering trade and economic security. We have secured agreements with France, Albania, Turkey and others to stop illegal migration. At the G20, we went further. We signed a new strategic partnership with Singapore to boost jobs, growth and our security. I held warm and productive discussions with Prime Minister Modi on strengthening our relationship in defence and technology and on a free trade deal between our nations.
I also met Premier Li of China. The whole House is rightly appalled by reports of espionage in this building. The sanctity of this place must be protected, and the right of Members to speak their minds without fear or sanction must be maintained. We will defend our democracy and our security, so I was emphatic with Premier Li that actions that seek to undermine British democracy are completely unacceptable and will never be tolerated. I also emphasised the UK’s unyielding commitment to human rights, and I was clear on the importance of maintaining stability and international law as the basis for stable relations. China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the world’s second largest economy and the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. It has growing influence on others, notably Russia. One of my messages to Premier Li was that China should use its influence to call on Russia to end its aggression against Ukraine. The G20 showed a common purpose on food security, and we need to see that in other areas.
This Government have acted decisively to improve our security, including blocking China’s involvement in critical areas such as civil nuclear power, semiconductors and 5G. I pay tribute to the tireless work of our security services. We will shortly set out our response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on China. In November last year, the Government set up a new defending democracy taskforce. Its mission is to reduce the risk to the UK’s democratic processes, institutions and society, and to ensure they are secure and resilient to threats of foreign interference. The importance of that work is clear for all to see. Crucially, in taking that approach, we are aligned with each and every single one of our Five Eyes allies and our G7 partners. By speaking frankly and directly, we will ensure our messages are heard clearly and that our interests and values are protected and promoted.
In conclusion, at a time of rapid change, we are bringing British values and British leadership to bear on the biggest global challenges. As one of the fastest growing major economies, the second largest contributor to NATO and a global leader in everything from climate to tech to development, I am proud of the United Kingdom’s leadership. It is through that leadership, working with our allies and partners, that we will increase our security, grow our economy and deliver on the priorities of the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement? I join him in sending my condolences and those of the whole House to those affected by the devastating earthquake in Morocco. I know that UK search and rescue specialists are working to help Moroccan authorities find survivors, and it is important at this time that all those in Morocco know we are thinking of them and are prepared to give the resources and support that they need.
The G20 summit in India was a real opportunity to see progress on key global issues, by condemning Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine in no uncertain terms and making solid commitments to boost growth and renewable energy capacity around the world. I am afraid therefore that the joint declaration from the weekend is disappointing. As Russian drones resumed attacks on Kyiv, it is disheartening to see language weaker than the G20’s condemnation of Moscow at last year’s summit in Bali. On this issue, the House speaks with one voice: there is no ambiguity; we all agree that this is an unjust, illegal war against Ukraine. I join the Prime Minister in saying that Britain and our NATO allies will remain committed in helping Ukraine defeat Putin.
On the matter raised in the preceding statement, the news of the arrest of a researcher here in Parliament on suspicion of spying for China is a serious breach of security conducted by the Beijing security services. Given that the arrest happened in March, can I ask the Prime Minister whether the Foreign Secretary knew about this incident before he visited China last month? If he did, did he raise it on that trip? I listened to the answers given on the preceding statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that these issues are regularly raised, but my question is specific, and I ask the Prime Minister to address it directly. If, as it seems, the Government are not considering designating China as a threat to national security, will he give further details on how they will tackle the infiltration of Chinese security services into key British institutions? Incidents like this show the constant threats that we face, and the G20 shows how far we have to go.
There was some important progress at the G20 this weekend: a new partnership for global infrastructure and investment was announced between the US, the EU, India and Gulf states. It is a partnership to counterbalance China’s belt and road initiative, boost economic department, secure supply chains and connect the US, EU and trusted partners in Asia. A much welcome initiative, we might think. So when I looked at the signatories to this new partnership, I was surprised—something was missing. Where was Britain? Will the Prime Minister explain why the UK has not signed this agreement? This seems remarkable. A new agreement has been reached between major trade blocs to deliver economic security and Britain is not involved. The Prime Minister owes the House an explanation. Have we been left out or have we just decided not to sign? The race towards the future has begun. Major nations are investing in new technology, hoping to establish themselves as leaders and major global centres for green technology. The US has introduced the Inflation Reduction Act; the EU, in return, is relaxing rules to allow greater green subsidy. Where is Britain? Where is the plan?
I would also like to ask the Prime Minister about the trade deal between India and the UK. The Government promised it in their manifesto. Then they said it would be done by Diwali last year. Now, the Prime Minister says that the deal is not even guaranteed. What is going on? It really sums up their global economic approach: no strategy and no direction. We cannot be slow off the mark. The race has started. They once promised a new era of post-Brexit global trade, but instead of more investment and more trade they have erected unnecessary barriers and made Britain a more difficult country to do business in. We cannot be left on the sidelines. Britain needs a seat at the table. We have the expertise, the creativity and the ingenuity, but the Government are too distracted and too complacent, and have no plan to seize the opportunities of the future.
The Prime Minister
Let me rattle through the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s questions. With regard to the matter covered in the preceding statement, I am sure he will appreciate that, as there is an ongoing investigation —as you also said, Mr Speaker—I am limited in what I can say specifically. But I have been emphatically clear in our engagement with China that we will not accept any interference in our democracy and parliamentary system. That includes the sanctioning of MPs and malign activity such as the type of activity alleged to have taken place. I can absolutely confirm that the Foreign Secretary raised those issues on his recent visit, and I reinforced that in my meeting at the G20.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to raise the announcement about the partnership for global infrastructure and investment. What he failed to mention in his criticism was that that initiative—the PGII—was created by the UK under our G7 presidency. Far from being something that we are not part of, we were the ones who made sure that we were there at its inception. Again, he is, as ever, jumping on the latest bandwagon that he can find. The PGII initiative will contain a range of different projects. This particular one was also not signed by Canada, Japan or Italy, for example. Each and every country will participate in a range of projects. What did we do to make our contribution? As I said, we made the single largest pledge this country has ever made to the green climate fund. Why? Because it is important that we play our part in helping countries make the transition to net zero—something that we have led on previously and, because of that commitment, we will continue to lead on.
What else did we do? We decided to work with other countries to improve global food security, something that African nations in particular have called on us to do. They have welcomed our leadership in hosting a summit later this year, which will tackle the cause at its root, improving crop yields and the resilience of food supplies globally. I could go on. As ever, the right hon. and learned Gentleman tries to find something to score a cheap political point, and completely and utterly misunderstands what this country is doing. As ever, he would prefer to talk this country down than recognise the contribution we are making.
I am happy to address the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments on the trade deal. I thought they were telling—he asked, why do we not just sign it, why is it not done? I had a flashback to all those conversations when we were leaving the EU. His approach back then was just to sign any deal that was offered to us. We know where that would have led. The right thing to do for the British people is to fight hard for the things that we need. We only need a deal that works for the British people and delivers on our priorities. That is why it is right not to rush these things, as he would do, clearly. We do not put arbitrary deadlines on them. I take the time to make sure that they are right for the British people.
Our track record is there: we are the first European nation to accede to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—something else the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to mention. That is the most exciting, dynamic trade bloc that exists in the world. The Asia-Pacific accounts for 50% of the world’s population. Sixty per cent. of goods trade passes through that region, and it will account for over half of global growth in the coming decades. Now that we have left the EU, we are able to join that trade bloc, and it is excited to have us.
Lastly, on the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about Brexit, again he failed to point out that since we left the single market we have grown faster than France and Germany. I will end where I started: as ever, when it comes to these things, he is determined to talk Britain down. We are demonstrating that Britain is leading on the global stage and delivering for the British people.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Let me start by putting on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and the parliamentary security and intelligence services for your personal support over the last few months.
Here today, we know that across this House a real priority for Members is the safety of British nationals arbitrarily detained abroad. The Foreign Affairs Committee has recently released a report on that matter. It cannot be right that consular access is withheld on the basis of diplomatic silence being in place. I know that my right hon. Friend raised the case of Jagtar Singh Johal with the Indian Prime Minister at the weekend, but we are not clear on the outcome of those discussions. Will the Government finally officially call for his release? The UN has accepted that he is arbitrarily detained. Does the Prime Minister believe that he has been unfairly treated or even tortured while being held?
The Prime Minister
We are committed to seeing Mr Johal’s case resolved as soon as possible. We continue to provide consular assistance to him and his family, and have raised concerns about issues including consular access to Mr Johal, the judicial process and reports of mistreatment, with the Indian Government on multiple occasions, including myself with Prime Minister Modi just this weekend.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
We have heard a lot of PR and spin today, and I am sure we will hear a lot more. As ever in this game, what the Prime Minister is not saying is almost as important as what he is saying. The Leader of the official Opposition raised the case of President Biden’s announcement. Can the Prime Minister tell us what part of those projects his Government are involved in? They are worth more than any FTA that we could sign, and will leave Brexit Britain on the global sidelines yet again if it is not fully involved. That is on top of the United States’ inflation-busting and reduction Act tackling climate change.
On the bilateral meetings with the Prime Minister’s counterparts, we heard of very strong concerns—relating to your statement earlier, Mr Speaker—raised with Chinese Premier Li. Can the Prime Minister advise the House when he was first notified of this issue?
On the case of my constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal, which was raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Prime Minister brought it up in conversations with Prime Minister Modi. Given the widespread concerns, in this place and outside, about the leaking of this Government’s resolve to Jagtar Singh Johal, particularly in relation to getting a trade deal over the line, will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and Jagtar Singh Johal’s family, so he can tell them exactly what he intends to do on their behalf?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer on Mr Johal. Most recently, the Foreign Office Minister met Mr Johal’s family to discuss the case in detail.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s other points, on our investment partnerships, the British investment partnership approach with India, for example, has invested over £2 billion to support 600 different enterprises, employing about half a million people. That is just to give him some sense of the scale of the alternative projects we are involved in.
Lastly, I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s point, which the Leader of the Opposition also raised, about the US Inflation Reduction Act and the approach of other countries. Neither seem to recognise that the approach we have taken is working for the UK, not least with the recent announcement of a £4 billion investment in the UK by Tata, which represents the single largest investment in our auto industry, potentially ever, to build a gigafactory here. That was followed by investment by Stellantis and BMW to secure future electric vehicle manufacturing in the UK. Any which way we look at it, our auto manufacturing sector is receiving record amounts of investment to make the transition to electricity-oriented vehicles. That is because of the tax, regulatory and incentive regime we have put in place, which is delivering real jobs and real opportunity for the British people.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Did the Chinese representatives give any indication of when they might stop their big increases in carbon dioxide and start to reduce them? Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it makes no sense for the UK to rely on Chinese imports of electric vehicles, solar panels and other green products when they are so CO2-intensive in their production, and deny us the jobs and added value?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. He will see in the G20 declaration a commitment by all members recognising the need to peak emissions in the next couple of years. To his broader point, that is why the Government have consulted on measures to address carbon leakage. It is absolutely right that there is a level playing field, and that if we take action here it should not come at the cost of British workers if it ultimately makes no difference to global emissions. That is why we have consulted on proposals on carbon leakage, and I very much welcome his thoughts on that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the House in sending our condolences to all those affected by the tragic events in Morocco.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He was, rightly, strongly critical of President Putin in his statement, but I have to say that I do not agree with his assessment of the G20 statement on Ukraine. The joint declaration failed to condemn Russia for the invasion. Our Ukrainian allies labelled it
“nothing to be proud of”,
while the Russians called it
“a step in the right direction”.
Ukraine’s soldiers continue to give their lives in defence of their country, while Ukrainian refugees continue to take shelter here in the UK and elsewhere. Why did the Prime Minister feel he was justified in signing up to such a weak communiqué?
The Prime Minister
I find it slightly strange that the right hon. Gentleman is using what Russia describes the situation to be as evidence of support. With everything we have seen over the past year we should not believe a word coming out of Russia’s mouth, so that is a very strange approach to take. What I would say to him on his criticism is that I am not entirely sure who he is critical of, because every single one of our Five Eyes partners and G7 allies who was present also signed the G20 statement. We fought hard to have a statement that we thought did in fact—as the US itself has said, including the President and the Treasury Secretary—contain substantially very strong language regarding Russia.
I went out to the summit specifically to raise the impact of Russia’s illegal war on food security and food prices. The language in the summit goes further than what we have had before, highlighting that and calling for an end to attacks on food and civilian infrastructure, and for the restoration of the Black sea grain initiative. We also agreed on the significance of securing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on the principles of the UN charter, including territorial integrity. That is why all our allies—I could go through the list of them—worked hard for that statement and supported it. The right hon. Gentleman’s criticism may well be of me, but he is also criticising every single one of our closest allies.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome the robustness of the Prime Minister’s stance on Russia, but does he agree that there are aspects of other topics discussed at the G20, such as China, which he might not be able to discuss in full on the Floor of the House, but which he could discuss securely with the Intelligence and Security Committee? I should add, however, that whereas for the first 20 years of the Committee’s existence it had a meeting with the Prime Minister every single year, there has been no such meeting since December 2014, although, during her short term in office, this Prime Minister’s immediate predecessor did volunteer to reinstate such meetings. May I ask him whether he will do the same—reinstate the meetings and return to proper, comprehensive scrutiny?
The Prime Minister
I shall be happy to consider my right hon. Friend’s request, but let me say in the meantime that I welcome the Committee’s report on China, and am grateful for all its efforts. The Government are considering its recommendations and conclusions carefully, and we will publish our response in due course and in the usual manner.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Surely one of the things that should keep the Prime Minister awake at night—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Unfortunately, a Member behind the hon. Member for Rhondda feels that he should be taken first. Let me just say that the hon. Gentleman is second on the list of members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and is also one of its longest-serving members.
Sir Chris Bryant
As I was saying, Mr Speaker—seconds out, round 2—the one thing that should keep the Prime Minister, or any Minister, awake at night is the arbitrary detention of a British national in a foreign country. One would hope that Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, would summon up every ounce of energy to try to get people released. I am sorry, but I think that quite a lot of us are very depressed by the Prime Minister’s answer to the question from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), about Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained for six years. Everyone knows that he is being tortured and mistreated. I took the Prime Minister to say that he had not called for his release. Is that really the truth?
The Prime Minister
No. As I said earlier, we consistently raise our concerns about Mr Johal’s case with the Government of India, including concerns about allegations of mistreatment and the right to a fair trial. That is why the Foreign Office and Ministers are giving direct support to Mr Johal’s family, and it is why I raised this specific case with Mr Modi.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome both the statement and the Prime Minister’s leadership on Ukraine. Our national security and our economic security are interdependent, and there is no better illustration of that than the grain ships that are trying to get out of Odesa. The Prime Minister mentioned the global food security summit. Could he expand on that? As he knows, I have been campaigning for some time for an international maritime protection force to help to escort those ships out, which would assist not only the Ukrainian economy but our own economy, because food inflation here is also being affected. Will the Prime Minister advance that idea to ensure that it is raised at the food security summit?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has focused on the issue of maritime security in the Black sea for some time, and he has been correct to do so. We are talking and working with partners, allies and, indeed, Ukraine in considering all the different ways in which we could ensure the safe exit of and access to grain from Ukraine, and will continue to do so.
As for the global food summit that we will host in London, it will focus on four themes: creating new approaches to ending the preventable deaths of children, building a climate-resilient food system, anticipating and preventing famine and food security crises, and using science and technology to boost food security and nutrition. We are also working to deliver the food summit in combination with partners including the United States and Somalia.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
May I first associate myself with the sympathies extended to the people of Morocco?
I welcome the language in paragraph 50 of the G20 communiqué about building a bigger World Bank. The truth is that we need to triple the lending of multilateral development banks if we are to mobilise the climate finance that the world now needs, and we cannot do that simply by building a better World Bank; we need to build a bigger World Bank. In the United States, President Biden is asking Congress to support a capital call and boost the balance sheet of the World Bank. Why is the UK, one of the founders of the World Bank, not leading the same argument? We could even use the money we are getting back from the European Investment Bank, and the Prime Minister, if he so chose, could call it a Brexit dividend. The world leads a bigger World Bank now, and the UK should be leading the case.
The Prime Minister
We are in fact leading the case on the World Bank’s balance sheet, and through my right hon. Friend the Development Minister we have had extensive conversations with the president of the World Bank on precisely that matter. It is something I discussed with colleagues at the G20, including the World Bank president himself. We are also broadly leading the way on how else we can reform the international financial system, including pioneering the use of climate-resilient debt clauses, which has been welcomed by countries around the world; channelling our IMF special drawing rights back for use for developing countries; and finding ways to stretch balance sheets to unlock more funding. The UK is looked to as a leader in all these areas, not least as we are announcing a conditional capital increase for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. All these things together position us as a thought leader in changing the international financial system. It was a subject of my interventions at the G20 and, as I have said, the Development Minister is taking forward this work at pace with our allies.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the inclusion in the communiqué of the G20 AI principles. I would like to press him on what further work he and the United Kingdom will be doing ahead of the AI summit in November to ensure that work on the safety of AI more than outpaces work on capability, and that we can move towards a meaningful principles-based approach to the safe use of this vital new technology.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right about the need for global co-operation when it comes to AI safety. It is obviously a technology that does not respect national borders. Again, this is an area where the UK is demonstrating leadership, building on our expertise and our leading position in AI research. We are having the conversation with partners about what that principles-based approach to regulation would look like, to ensure consistency across jurisdictions. We are also seeing what we can do to make sure that the UK is the leading place for that AI safety research, and that is the work of our AI taskforce, which is currently under way and proceeding well.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the African Union as a permanent member of the G20. Africa is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world and it is important that her voice is at the table discussing major global issues such as climate change, security and economic stability. My own country of origin, Nigeria, is one of the largest in Africa; it has over 223 million people, which is rising daily. Can the Prime Minister outline what steps his Government are taking towards a strategy for the continent?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent question and join her in saying that we were delighted to agree the African Union’s membership of the G20. She is right to highlight the increasing importance of Africa in global affairs. Over the next decade or so, Africa’s population will double to 2.5 billion people, with 60% of them under the age of 25. Also, Africa contributes just 4% of global emissions but is home to 35 of the 50 countries most at risk from climate change, so it is important that we are engaged and supportive. I can tell her what we are doing. Now that we have left the European Union and are in charge of our trade policy, we have changed our tariff structure so that 98% of goods imported into the UK from Africa will enter tariff-free. We are making sure that our just energy transition partnerships help countries such as South Africa with their transition, mobilising billions of dollars of support. Next year, we will be hosting the Africa investment summit with over 20 different countries, because the UK, as measured by foreign direct investment, is the largest investor in the continent.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In an ever more dangerous world, having allies and partners is really important, and trust is so important in keeping those allies. I thank my right hon. Friend for the commitment he made on climate change. It was a commitment we gave in Glasgow at COP, and this shows that Britain is a country that keeps its promises. Would he like to share examples of how that money will be spent, how it will make our allies and partners stronger and how that will help to strengthen our own security here in the UK?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for all her work in this area. She is right: it is important that we meet our commitment to £11.6 billion of international climate finance, and this particular investment will ensure that we do that. It was warmly welcomed by partner countries at the G20. She will know that the importance of giving money through this multilateral fund rather than bilaterally is that it can be leveraged multiple times, so every pound that we contribute will be able to be used multiple times more and attract more capital. In that way, we are helping to fund hundreds, if not thousands, of projects across the world and I know that the countries that benefit from them are extremely grateful for our support.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
In his private meeting with Mr Modi, did the Prime Minister raise the issue that, while we are supporting Ukraine, India is buying huge amounts of oil from Russia and trading in engineering, manufacturing and technology stocks? On the UK-India trade agreement, did he raise the human rights of the Dalit community, the Sikh community—particularly Jagtar Johal—and the Christian community and the abuses that have taken place, including the long-standing abuse of the Kashmiri community? For us to have a trade agreement, it must be fair and based on human rights and international law.
The Prime Minister
Supporting democracy and human rights is a core part of our engagement not just with India but with all countries with which we engage. When it comes to the situation in Kashmir, my view is that it is not for the United Kingdom to prescribe a solution or to act as a mediator.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Paragraph 30 of the G20 leaders’ declaration speaks of delivering quality education. Mahatma Gandhi said, and I paraphrase, “If you educate a man, you educate an individual. If you educate a woman, you educate a family.” The UK is certainly doing as much as it can to ensure that people across the globe who need education receive it, especially girls and women. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the UK will do all it possibly can to ensure that the other members of the G20, including the newest member, the African Union, do their bit to ensure that girls and women in their countries, and across the world, are educated?
The Prime Minister
It was a privilege to visit Raj Ghat to pay tribute to Gandhi’s work. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of equality and women’s access to education. I am very pleased that Prime Minister Modi made this a central theme of the G20 summit, and it is something we discussed. All of us in this House should be proud of the UK’s contribution over the past several years. We have helped to educate more than 8 million girls as part of our development priority to provide all girls with 12 years of high-quality education.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not think anyone in this Chamber takes seriously what the Russians may have to say about the G20, but we are listening to what the Ukrainians have said, and in particular their statement that there is nothing to be proud of in the joint statement. The Prime Minister spoke about speaking to President Zelensky before the summit. When he next rings him, how will he explain the fact that the statement does not even mention the word “Russia”?
The Prime Minister
I know President Zelensky was incredibly supportive of our effort to highlight Russia’s aggression, the impact it is having on food prices and food security, and the damage it has done to civilian infrastructure. He will be grateful for the fact we have declassified intelligence that shows the world those attacks on civilian ships. And I know he will be grateful for the work we are doing with Ukraine to find alternative means to export Ukrainian grain to the world, which is good not only for the Ukrainian economy and its sustainability but for millions of the world’s most vulnerable people.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. He has said that ending the war in Ukraine and holding Russia to account is a top priority. I dealt with sanctions as a Foreign Office Minister, and they are a key tool for the United Kingdom to address Putin’s war machine. Forty-four non-aligned states are not supporting us with sanctions against Russia, which is delaying the war in Ukraine, and India is one of those countries. India takes Russian oil, and some now say that it refines that oil and sells the products into Europe, circumventing those sanctions. Did the Prime Minister have those conversations with Prime Minister Modi? If so, will India now change its behaviour?
The Prime Minister
Our position is of long standing and consistent: we urge all countries to follow our lead, and the lead of others, in sanctioning Russia. Obviously each country will approach that in its own way. Our job is to continue raising the impact of Russia’s illegal war, and to work with our allies to bring that war to an end, including by enforcing our own sanctions. That is why I announced the economic deterrence initiative in March, with £50 million of funding being made available to improve our enforcement of the UK sanctions regime. We are developing that closely with our partners, and I think it will help to tighten the vice on Russia’s economy.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister wanted praise for the inception of the partnership for global infrastructure and investment. The agreement that was signed by the US, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France, Germany, Italy and the European Union is described as a landmark agreement, creating an economic corridor across Europe, the middle east and India. If the inception of the global partnership is worth claiming praise for, will he explain—he did not answer this question earlier—why Britain was not a signatory to that memorandum of understanding?
The Prime Minister
As I have said previously, each country will contribute to the effort in its own way. We are participating in many different projects, together with our partner countries, that help countries lessen their dependence on China. One thing we have led on is the development of the common framework to ensure that countries can get appropriate debt relief. Again, they are very grateful for our leadership on that, with China having put many countries in hock to it. We have created a framework and made sure that China has engaged with it. It is already providing relief to two countries and we are making sure that there are more in the pipeline. That has been very welcome, but, again, it is just an example of our leadership making a difference on these complicated matters.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
In 2015, I went to Delhi to implement the coalition Government’s decision to end grant development aid to India. That policy has not changed, has it?
The Prime Minister
The policy did change and we stopped providing traditional development aid to India in 2015. Most UK funding is now in the form of business investments which not only help India reduce carbon emissions and address climate change, but deliver jobs and opportunity for British companies here at home.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
With so much at stake—the war in Ukraine, increasingly high numbers of people suffering from famine and drought, and human rights issues in places such as Iran or the Xinjiang part of China—is now really the time for the Prime Minister to empty chair the United Nations General Assembly?
The Prime Minister
I have just been over how our leadership on these matters is unquestioned. We are an active and engaged member at the G20. In just a couple of weeks, I will be at the European Political Community summit as well. Let me gently point out something to the hon. Lady about the UN General Assembly: as far as I can tell from looking back at the records, on the vast majority of occasions under the Labour Government it was not the Labour Prime Minister who attended either.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The leaders’ declaration expresses the optimism about AI that I know the Prime Minister and I share. It talks about the importance of “international governance” and “international co-operation”. How optimistic is he that all the countries at the G20 can sign up to those sorts of principles, just as they signed up to the joint declaration?
The Prime Minister
There was a good conversation about AI at the G20 summit. I am optimistic that most countries are approaching this in a similar way, recognising the tremendous opportunities for growth, opportunity and transforming developments in healthcare and education in particular, but cognisant of the challenges and risks that AI poses, and keen to work together to find ways to resolve those. Obviously, it is very early days in terms of countries having this conversation and everyone learning themselves about the potential of the technology. However, as I said, I think that on this topic the UK can play a leadership role, and that is what we will do.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us were very impressed by the close relationship that the Prime Minister obviously has with Prime Minister Modi. When he had private time with Prime Minister Modi, did he ask him, first, why he has not condemned Russia for the invasion of Ukraine? Secondly, did he ask what Modi is doing to stop all the persecution of Muslims and Christians, with their mosques and churches being burnt, and with people being killed and persecuted?
The Prime Minister
The Prime Minister and I discussed a range of issues. As I have said, we talk about human rights and defending democracy in all our international engagement, because those are values that we believe in very dearly.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Of course, migration is best dealt with by international co-operation, but it also depends on decisive action at home. One thousand five hundred Indians enter this country legally every week. Last year 600 came across illegally in boats, and this year there have been 600 in just the first three months. The Prime Minister told me personally that he would lead by example by having illegal migrants based at Catterick in his constituency. This afternoon, the Ministry of Defence was unable to give me any date on when they are going to come. Meanwhile, my council has issued a stop notice against the slash-and-burn tactics of the Home Office at RAF Scampton. The Prime Minister is the head of the Government. Will he instruct Home Office Ministers to work proactively with West Lindsey District Council to ensure that we get a compromise, do our bit and take illegal migrants to a secure location, and that we do not rely on decaying bases but take action that will work in the future?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive engagement. I know that he will continue to represent his community strongly and has engaged with Home Office Ministers on the particular issues in his constituency. More broadly, we continue to strengthen our co-operation with international partners to combat illegal migration—something I discussed with many of my counterparts at the G20, as I will continue to do through further engagement this autumn—and look to find ways to formalise that co-operation and improve returns agreements. As he mentioned, it is important that we have the ability to return illegal migrants who have come here from countries that are clearly safe places for them. We have done that with Albania and are strengthening the returns agreements with other countries, too.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is disappointing that the this year’s statement from the G20 does not name the perpetrator of aggression in Ukraine. What kind of statement is it where G20 leaders feel the need to spin the interpretation of it after the event? Does the Prime Minister agree with Canada’s Liberal Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who said yesterday that if it were up to him, the language on the war would have been stronger?
The Prime Minister
It goes without saying that, because this is not the G7 or, indeed, the G1, it is not for us just to take the language that we ourselves would like. Our position on Ukraine is crystal clear for all to see, but the G20 is a collection of a large group of countries that do not all share the same perspective on global affairs or, indeed, the same values. To assume that it can reflect the unanimity that we have in the G7 is simply to misunderstand how foreign affairs actually works.
The hon. Member asked about what the statement said. It agreed on the significance of securing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace. The statement specifically called for an end to attacks on food and civilian infrastructure and for Russia to rejoin the Black sea grain initiative. Indeed, it highlighted the suffering that it is causing. It was also a statement that the United States described as containing “substantively very strong” language on the situation. This why to have agreement among G20 members, even if it is not exactly the language we would have chosen, is still a positive outcome from this summit.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I, too, associate myself with the Prime Minister’s words about Morocco and the people of Morocco, and I pay tribute to Truro-based ShelterBox, which as ever has a team standing ready for deployment at the point that the Moroccan Government need it. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what conversations he has had with his G20 partners about critical mineral extraction, not only to boost local production from Cornwall—lithium, obviously—but to ensure that we have supply chains that cut out rogue partners?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the need to improve our economic resilience and security, which is why that is an increasing feature of the partnerships and agreements that we strike around the world. Indeed, it was a feature of the partnership agreement that I struck with Japan when I was there and with the US when I visited recently. I spoke to President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida about those agreements and the work that we are doing. In both cases, there are milestones for us to meet with regard to strengthening our co-operation on critical minerals in particular.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He rightly highlighted the importance of international trade and the progress that he has made, including new partnerships joined. Will he perhaps give a bit more detail on the progress made on securing a UK-India deal?
The Prime Minister
We do make, and have made, substantial progress, but as I said, there is hard work left to do and that is why we will we keep at it. But it is right that we do not put arbitrary deadlines on these trade deals and that we keep going until they work for the British people, British companies and the British Government. That is what we will endeavour to do. As I say, we have made lots of progress, but we will not sign a deal unless it is right for the United Kingdom.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his leadership in securing the outcomes of the summit. Further to his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), in view of the scale of the population and the speed of growth in India, the areas of joint expertise and the co-operation that has taken place to date, as well as the deep-rooted ties the UK has with India, which spread across the whole of the United Kingdom, can my right hon. Friend assure me that as he progresses the negotiations on the trade deal, he will ensure that it contains a chapter or elements that allow for small businesses and medium-sized enterprises across the UK and beyond to trade effectively with India?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unquestionably, India is if not the most, then one of the most significant and consequential countries for global affairs over the coming years and decades. It is absolutely right and important that the United Kingdom has a close relationship with India that spans not just economic co-operation but areas including defence and security, and science and technology research collaboration. We are aiming to enhance our partnership in all those areas, for the reasons he mentioned. This will be to the long-term benefit of the UK if we get it right.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Members will know that the next G20 summit will be held in Rio in November 2024. I note with interest that Brazil has already placed on the agenda something called
“reform of the global governance institutions”.
Does the Prime Minister agree that reform of the UN Security Council should be considered with the best interests of the UK at heart, so that the UN Security Council remains a viable framework for global security, and that Britain must never put Britain’s seat at the table on the table?
The Prime Minister
We have spoken in the past about support for additional members of the UN Security Council, including in India, and it is something we continue to do. As my hon. Friend has seen, at this G20 summit we warmly supported and welcomed the inclusion of the African Union in the G20, because he makes a good point that international institutions need to adapt and change continually, to reflect the reality of the current state of global affairs.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I was very proud earlier this month to celebrate Ukraine Independence Day with Huddersfield’s vibrant Ukrainian community. I heard at first hand how proud they are of the UK’s steadfast support for Ukraine. With Brazil taking over the presidency of the G20, will the Prime Minister continue to work with our international allies and partners to increase and build on our wonderful support for Ukraine, and to build unity in condemning Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to him and his constituents for all they are doing to support Ukraine and Ukrainian families. UK support for Ukraine now amounts to over £9 billion, and 29 different states have now signed up to the declaration we helped to initiate to provide long-term security support to Ukraine, so he can be confident in our steadfast support for Ukraine. It is not going away; we are here to stay, which is why we will tell Russia that now is the time to lay down arms and come to a sensible, peaceful resolution.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today, and for responding to questions for 55 minutes.
Points of Order
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the recent debate on the safety of school buildings, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) referred to a school in my constituency, wrongly including it in a list of schools with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete waiting to hear from the Government about remediation. The original school was indeed built using RAAC, many decades ago. However, earlier this year pupils moved into their brand-new £23-million state-of-the-art school on the site, while utilising other college buildings as the next stage of the £50-million transformation progresses. Furthermore, the Royal College Manchester, Seashell Trust, is not reliant on Government funding; it is non-maintained, as it is an independent charity. Will you direct me on how I can set the record straight and ensure that the positive message regarding this excellent school is heard?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and her forward notice of it. Let us be fair: she has just done it, in an amazing way.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 20 July this year, I and more than 70 right hon. and hon. Members from all parties wrote to the Prime Minister regarding the case of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal. Questions were addressed directly to the Prime Minister on whether he would raise the case of my constituent when he met his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, at last weekend’s G20 summit, and on whether he would ask for his release, given the plethora of organisations, including the United Nations, that have deemed his detention to be arbitrary.
I do not come to the House today to complain about the tardy ministerial response; instead, my grievance lies in the fact that it was not the Prime Minister who replied to me but a junior Minister from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office who sits in the other House. Only the Prime Minister would be in a position to answer, because only he was in the room with Prime Minister Modi and in a position to ask the questions about Jagtar. What recourse do we have as Members, Mr Deputy Speaker, when correspondence with His Majesty’s Government, including the primus inter pares, who is also a Member of the House, is treated with such disrespect?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order and his forward notice of it. It is not for the Chair but for the Government to decide which Ministers reply to a particular piece of correspondence, but I know how assiduously the hon. Member pursues this matter and I am sure that he will continue to find ways to ensure that it is on the Prime Minister’s agenda.
Ukraine
(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.
Since the most recent statement on Ukraine, which was given in June by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), the armed forces of Ukraine have launched their land offensives to retake their country. I therefore thought it useful to start with an update on the status of the conflict before I outline the strategic consequences and considerations for where we are today.
The impact of Ukraine’s summer offensive has been widely reported in the media. Although it is true that the conflict remains hard going for both sides, Ukraine’s determination remains steadfast. The Ukrainian armed forces have shown extraordinary resourcefulness and their determination to win is stronger than ever. They have adapted, necessarily, their approach to overcome the Russian use of mines, artillery and drones, resulting in steady progress, with notable success in recent weeks. We have witnessed the clever prioritisation of their operations and they are husbanding the battle-winning equipment provided by their allies and partners to have maximum effect.
The Ukrainian armed forces continue to prioritise offensive action in the Robotyne area and are currently fighting through the first Russian main defensive line, which is heavily fortified. Ukraine is carrying out operations around Bakhmut, pushing the Russians back to the edge of the town and ensuring no significant territorial changes within the past month. Despite the large numbers of Russian forces committed, they are not succeeding. Ukraine has made notable successes in destroying several Russian command and control centres and ammunition storage sites.
It is difficult, from the comfort of our position here in the House of Commons or watching on television as observers, to imagine the ferocity of the fighting and the sacrifices of the Ukrainians. It has been bloody, brutal and painstakingly slow as they have penetrated a defensive minefield that is 30 km in depth, but they are succeeding.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his introduction and for our clear commitment in the United Kingdom, and through the Minister’s office, to helping Ukraine. One thing that is currently prevalent—the Minister referred to it—is the clearance of mines. I understand that in the past perhaps 10 or 12 months Russia has had time to set different levels and lines of mines. What help are we in the United Kingdom and, indeed, all of the free world able to give to the Ukrainians to clear the mines?
James Heappey
There are two parts to mine clearance in-country. First, there is the tactical mine clearance of lanes through which to launch the Ukrainian offensive. The tactic to which the Ukrainians have resorted to preserve combat power has been to clear the minefields very slowly, deliberately and methodically with dismounted infantry, in a way that those of us who served in Afghanistan or Iraq will remember as a tactic for improvised explosive devices there. It is quite something that that has been the tactic for clearing a minefield, but it has preserved combat power and therefore has been necessary. The other part is that there will obviously need to be a demining effort for the country at large after the war, and that is a concern for all of Ukraine’s donors and friends—[Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, it seems odd to talk about the progress of the war and the atrocities when others are so busy in their conversation, but I am sure they mean nothing by it.
Despite the large numbers of Russian forces committed, they are not succeeding. Ukraine has had notable successes, destroying several Russian command and control centres and ammunition storage sites. It is difficult from the comfort of our position as observers to imagine the ferocity of the fighting and the sacrifice of the Ukrainians. Russia is suffering heavily on the battlefield and has taken some 200,000 casualties, of whom we believe 60,000 have been killed. In addition, more than 10,000 armoured vehicles have been destroyed.
However, the value of today’s debate is not simply to reflect on the tactical situation on the ground in south-east Ukraine, but to zoom out and assess the strategic scorecard.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point about demining, but demining could be put in place now, and it is important now, because even areas that are retaken still have significant numbers of seeded mines. There is not only traditional mine clearance, of the kind that he will be familiar with from Afghanistan, but the use of artificial intelligence and software to predict how mines move and spread. That work can be done now—we do not have to wait till the end of the war.
James Heappey
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s observation. The reality is that, as the frontline moves, it is in Ukraine’s interest to bring the agricultural land back into productive use as quickly as possible, and we have seen some extraordinarily innovative efforts to do that, from the most low-tech to the most high-tech. The challenge is that neither the UK nor any other supporter of Ukraine would want to put a combat engineering capability into the country, for fear of any miscalculation that that would cause. That effort necessarily sits with the non-governmental organisations, but there are a number working with the Ukrainian Government, some of which are based here in the UK.
I suggested that the House zoom out a bit to look at the strategic scorecard. As a result of Putin’s war, the Russian people are needlessly suffering, the Russian economy is faltering and we are seeing Ukrainian strikes deep into the interior of Russia. An aborted coup and its aftermath laid bare the nature of Putin’s regime and the strength of feeling of so many Russians against his so-called special military operation. It has become a standard line in these updates, but on day 564 of Putin’s three-day operation he still has not achieved any of his strategic objectives. Russia’s economy is failing, the rouble continues to fall and sanctions are biting.
As we have seen before, Russia will resort to terrorising Ukraine’s population whenever its battlefield objectives cannot be met. Just last Wednesday, a Russian strike hit a crowded market in the Ukrainian city of Kostiantynivka, killing at least 17 people and wounding a further 32. Over the weekend we have seen sham elections run in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Crimea, but, as the Foreign Secretary tweeted, the problem for Putin is that
“You can’t hold elections in someone else’s country.”
Putin continues to use food as a weapon to hold the world to ransom. Russia is using its Black sea fleet to attack Ukrainian ports with impunity in order to prevent the export of grain and exacerbate global food insecurity. I have travelled extensively across Africa and the rest of what is sometimes lazily referred to as the global south. Whatever Putin might think he achieves through the security conference he hosts in Moscow and St Petersburg, I am yet to meet anyone who is not clear that it is his attacks on Ukrainian port infrastructure that threaten food security across the developing world. He is using food as a weapon. We encourage a return to the Black sea grain initiative, but we are clear-eyed about Putin’s actions and his likely intent.
It is self-evident that Russia’s behaviour on sovereign Ukrainian territory means that he is interested neither in finding a path to peace nor in stability in the world beyond. Make no mistake, the fastest route to peace in Ukraine and to security and stability for the rest of us is through Putin withdrawing his forces and ending this illegal and unjustified war.
The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to support Ukraine’s offensive. As the House will know well, we provided £2.3 billion in military support to Ukraine last year, and by being the first to send tanks and Storm Shadow missiles, we galvanised a coalition of like-minded nations to follow suit and come to the defence of the broader international rules-based system. At the NATO summit in Vilnius in July, the Prime Minister announced a new tranche of support for Ukraine, including thousands of additional rounds for Challenger 2 tanks, more than 70 combat and logistic vehicles, and a £50 million support package for equipment repair, as well as the establishment of a new military rehabilitation centre. We are also seeing increased contributions to the international fund for Ukraine. So far, £782 million has been pledged, and 10 contracts worth £182 million have been placed, to assist Ukraine in critical areas such as intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, electronic warfare and air defence. The first deliveries arrived in Ukraine this summer.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Two organisations in Putney have raised a lot of money and contributions of medical aid for Ukraine. They have, with volunteers, taken ambulances out to Ukraine. That is a big need that has been communicated back to us. Can the Minister say anything more about the medical aid being supplied to those on the frontline in Ukraine?
James Heappey
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that. There is, of course, the aid that the MOD gives the Ukrainian armed forces in combat medical equipment and, indeed, in medical support, but the most amazing thing in the medical aid space is what has been done by small groups around the country, such as those in her constituency. People have banded together and pooled whatever supplies they can lay their hands on. Very often, they then deliver those supplies in person —exactly as she says her constituents have done—which takes some bravery, as well as real commitment to gathering them in the first place. In reality, those endeavours will always be of enormous value to communities across Ukraine, just as the medical aid that we give more directly to the Ukrainian military is to them. Her constituents and others are to be commended. The Government will continue to support the military with the medical aid it needs, and to consider what more we as a nation can do to complement the work done by voluntary groups.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
A charity similar to those the Minister describes is Medics4Ukraine, which is based in my constituency. I visited those at the charity and asked them what they would request of the Government. They said that expired medical equipment from the NHS—specifically dressings approaching their expiry date—would be enormously useful to their charitable endeavour.
James Heappey
I note the hon. Gentleman’s comment and pay tribute to the work of the group in his constituency. On a Government-to-Government basis, it is important that we are led by the Government of Ukraine and what they ask us for. They are clear in their communication with us about their priorities, and those are what we resource. However, I will of course ensure that his point is noted. In the meantime, I encourage the groups in his constituency to continue doing what they can in support.
We have now trained more than 23,000 Ukrainian personnel under Operation Interflex, with contributions and knowledge from international partners, as demonstrated by the growing coalition of countries now joining us in training Ukrainians here on UK soil. Nearly 1,000 Ukrainian marines are returning home after being trained by the Royal Marine and Army commandos during a six-month UK programme. That training saw the commandos training Ukraine forces in small boat amphibious operations and in conducting beach raids. We have also commenced basic flying training for up to 20 Ukrainian pilots to support the recent decision by Denmark and the Netherlands to donate F-16 jets. That, in addition to the ongoing work from the Royal Navy to train the Ukrainian minesweeping crews, makes the UK the only country on earth that is training soldiers, sailors, aviators and marines—something about which we should be very proud.
Bob Seely
My right hon. Friend is making a great speech, and I apologise for interrupting again and thank him for taking the intervention. Apologies if I have missed it, but when it comes to training people, is any thought being given to a Sandhurst package or starting to get junior officers through? One thing that the Royal United Services Institute has identified—it is not necessary to go through a year-long course to do it, but it may help—is the lack of junior officers, and of people with J3 ops experience and of putting together basic plans. That is one point that has been identified, and I was wondering whether my right hon. Friend could answer it.
James Heappey
My hon. Friend thinks deeply about the problem, and his observations are absolutely correct. It would be inelegant to reflect on the private conversations that we have with Ukrainian Ministers and defence chiefs, but I think Ukraine is going through exactly the same as any other country that has been fighting a war: it is very hard to strike the balance between keeping its most combat-experienced and battle-hardened on the frontline, in command of tactical situations, and bringing those people rearwards and making them part of the planning or training effort. That can have an exponential impact, but it is a very big opportunity cost to accept.
The UK remains one of the largest bilateral humanitarian donors to Ukraine. At the Ukraine recovery conference in London in June, co-chaired by the UK and Ukraine, we added a further £127 million of humanitarian support to the £220 million we have already provided. This week, we have proscribed the Wagner Group as a terrorism organisation, a further measure of the UK’s commitment to compete with Russian influence wherever in the world it manifests itself. Through our sanctions, we are frustrating Russia’s attempts to prosecute its war and hindering its efforts to resupply. The UK alone has sanctioned over 1,600 individuals and entities since the start of the invasion, including 29 banks with global assets worth £1 trillion, 129 oligarchs with a combined net worth of over £145 billion, and over £20 billion-worth of UK-Russia trade. In June, we introduced legislation to reinforce our approach by enabling sanctions to remain in place until Russia pays for the damage it has caused in Ukraine.
Russia’s failures on the battlefield demonstrate that its much-vaunted and much-feared capabilities are anything but. Russia has been proven to be an unreliable partner, unable or unwilling to satisfy export orders due to outdated and inferior-quality materials, alongside inadequate logistics and equipment care. Moscow is having to prioritise its own forces over its international order book. Potential Russian export customers see clearly the opportunity to diversify their defence supply and seek out the reliable and effective equipment that Britain and others in the west manufacture.
What is true for defence exports is increasingly true for all other exports, too. That matters, because Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine is increasingly costly to him, not just in blood and treasure on the battlefield, but in influence in the international arena. More and more countries in Russia’s near abroad are looking for other friends because they see that Russia cannot be trusted, while countries that have been in the Russian sphere for decades, and depended on it for their defence and security, now realise the need to diversify. That is not just in NATO, where Finland and Sweden have gone through huge strategic shifts: others around the world are doing likewise. The cost to Russia of Putin’s folly will last for decades.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I commend the Minister for the full range of strategic initiatives being conducted by the British Government, but it strikes me that the best way of supporting Ukraine in toto is for all 32 member nations of NATO to be contributing the agreed 2% per nation. As of today, seven of those 32 are doing so. May I please ask the Minister—with the FCDO Minister, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), in his place as well—what we are doing to compel, or at least coerce or encourage, other NATO nations to do so?
James Heappey
At the Vilnius summit earlier in the summer, the Prime Minister and others who are spending 2% of GDP were very clear in their expectation that others quickly move to do likewise. Moreover, they were clear that that cannot be just a short-term capital commitment, but a long-term, enduring commitment to spend 2% for good, as a minimum—a floor—because Euro-Atlantic security has not been so threatened for well over a generation.
One day, the war in Ukraine will cease, so we must make sure that Ukraine is in the best possible shape to help its economy recover, and quickly. To bring prosperity back to Ukraine, the Ukraine recovery conference committed a further £3 billion of guarantees to unlock World Bank lending; £240 million of bilateral assistance; and up to £250 million of new capital for the UK’s development finance institution, British International Investment, to advance Ukraine’s economic recovery. Critically, we are also spending some £62 million on a programme to help Ukraine rebuild a sustainable and resilient energy system and to keep the lights on.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure those in the Kremlin pay particular attention to the Commons when you are in the Chair, so I have no doubt that they are watching this afternoon, and they need to be clear that we recognise the need—
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful, because I think he is reaching the end of his remarks—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
But I was waiting for him to get on to the bigger strategic picture. It is quite clear that Mr Putin is playing this long in the hope that the patience of our allies—we can think of who they are—will wear thin, our attention will wane and by a process of attrition he will gain something out of this conflict. I congratulate the Government on refusing to accept that that should be the outcome, but what confidence does the Minister have that we will carry all our allies to ensure that we sustain the Ukrainians’ effort so that that they achieve total victory, not some sell-out of half their territory already occupied by the Russians?
James Heappey
Well, Hansard already has the final few paragraphs of my speech, so I will simply agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely correct. The tactical support that we provide to the Ukrainians to win, tonight and tomorrow, will continue for as long as is needed. Putin cannot wait this out, and to prove that, increasingly over the last few months the UK Government’s focus has been not just on that tactical support for tomorrow, but on giving Putin the certainty that the Ukrainian armed forces will be helped to continue to modernise and grow over the next decade so that they finish this war superior to the Russian armed forces. We will help Ukraine to recover more quickly and to grow faster than Russia, so that the economic cost and difference are clear for all to see. The UK has the strategic patience to make sure that this illegal war finishes in Ukraine’s favour, and that Putin or his successors are shown that Russia will never succeed by throwing its might around in its near abroad.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been 564 days since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. War in Europe is a harsh reminder that to be secure at home we must be strong abroad, and that our allies are our greatest strategic strength in doing so.
Our commitment to Ukraine must be long lasting. Fine words do not defeat the tanks of an invader; only weapons, training, courage and determination stand up to them. The Ukrainian war effort in recent weeks and months has been slow going, but effective. Despite deeply dug in and heavily mined Russian defences, the Ukrainians are steadily getting the upper hand on the battlefield in the south of the country by targeting supply lines and outlying areas in the western Zaporizhzhia oblast and Robotyne. In its defence, the Ukraine operation is also diversifying the ways it is hitting its enemy—airfields at depth in Russia, targets in Crimea and Russian ships in the Black sea. Some have criticised the slow pace of Ukraine’s counter-offensive, yet Ukrainian forces are making a similar rate of progress as British troops did in the days after D-day and the Normandy landings. Now, as then, it is brutal conventional trench warfare, and I want to pay tribute on behalf of all on the Opposition side of the House to the extraordinary heroism and resilience of the Ukrainian military in the face of Russian aggression.
In contrast, Vladimir Putin is fighting a war on a number of fronts with a military battlefield and a political one, too. He is fighting to fix his failing war strategy as Russia’s armed forces continue to fight on the back foot in Ukraine, without the supplies they need, the leadership they need and the rotation of troops they need. Putin is fighting increasing hostility on Russian soil, with a growing number of drone attacks and economic headwinds facing the country because of the grip of sanctions. He is fighting increasing scrutiny of his leadership, as we saw in the aborted coup over the summer, as concerns about the war continue to grow in Russia. However, more than 18 months on, there is no sign that his strategic aims have changed, nor are there any signs that he is any closer to achieving a single one of them.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Going back to the hon. Member’s comments about D-day and Normandy, the Americans and Brits were bogged down in hedgerow country there, and the way they broke out and started to make real progress was with overwhelming aerial superiority and bombardment. That is exactly what the Ukrainians need.
Luke Pollard
It is telling that neither Ukraine nor Russia enjoys air superiority over the contested parts of Ukraine at the moment; nor does either enjoy superiority in the electronic warfare spectrum or in uncrewed aerial vehicles. That contest in EW and the airspace makes the contest on land even more brutal, so the hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of ensuring that we continue to support our friends in Ukraine not just with artillery systems but with the shells and spare parts required to ensure the artillery can keep firing. We must also ensure a continual supply of aerial combat systems—not only F-16s, but the uncrewed drones, which Ukraine is using with such effect—and training. This is a long-term commitment, and while there is no air superiority we need to make sure that every single available advantage that Ukraine can have from the provision of western support is available to it. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Putin believes that the west will not stay the course, as the Minister suggested, but Putin is wrong. Those who call for the Ukrainians to sue for peace and negotiate are doing Putin’s dirty work for him. In over 20 years, Putin has never given up territory he has taken by force. A ceasefire now would cede territory to Russia, allowing Putin’s forces to regroup, deepen the occupation and pretend there is legitimisation for the regime of torture, rape and execution, including the theft of Ukrainian children and their removal to parts of Russia.
The threats we face from Putin are long term, and our resolve must equally stand the test of time across Parliaments, across changes of Ministers and across changes of Governments. There may well be a change to Labour next year, but let me say clearly that there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.
The defence of the United Kingdom starts in Ukraine. The support that has been offered to Ukraine by the UK should make us all proud, and I agreed with the Minister when he set out clearly the contribution that has been made by UK forces through Operation Interflex, with the training of our Ukrainian friends and the provision of military systems. Now it is time for Ukraine’s allies to double down on that support, because this is a long-term fight. The UK does deserve credit for its support for Ukraine and the leadership shown among allies to get them to do more, but it is vital that we are able to say the same thing in six months’ time, because stockpiles are being depleted, energy levels are lowering and there is a risk of fatigue. We cannot afford that fatigue, and that is why we must be in this for the long term.
Once Ukraine has prevailed, the rightful place for Ukraine is in NATO, alongside the allies that share common views on democracy, freedom and territorial integrity. That is the rightful place for Ukraine once it has prevailed. However, let me also reiterate that the UK Government will continue to have Labour’s fullest support on military aid to Ukraine and on reinforcing our NATO allies. Labour’s support for NATO is unshakeable, and our backing for Ukraine is solid and firm.
Ukrainians are now urgently asking for more, to help with their current counter-offensive and ensure that it succeeds. Since January, the Prime Minister has repeatedly pledged to accelerate UK support for Ukraine, but one concern on the Opposition side of the House is that momentum behind our military help is faltering. The 14 Challenger 2 tanks that the UK sent to Ukraine may be seen as top of the range, but our effort has now been dwarfed by other European allies. Poland has committed 324 tanks, the Czechs 90, and our friends in the Netherlands 89. There is an urgent need to help Ukraine ramp up its domestic industrial production of key weapons and equipment such as ammunition and shells. BAE Systems’ move to set up a local entity in Ukraine is a start, but the Government could be doing far more to help facilitate deals from a variety of partners, so that Ukraine can produce both modern and Soviet-era systems closer to the frontline, so that they can be used quicker.
Ministers are also yet to provide accelerated support on new drone technologies, including counter-drone measures such as electronic warfare systems and armoured vehicles, despite there being a clear need to do so. Finally, our friends in Ukraine need further support with their de-mining capability—that was raised earlier by a number of Members across the House. It is important that such de-mining support continues, not only on the frontline to ensure a breakthrough, but in the liberated areas to ensure that proper economic activity can return.
Now is the time when the UK should be stepping up support for the Ukrainian offensive. Will the Minister clarify how the new Defence Secretary will be accelerating UK assistance to Ukraine, and will he set out the scope of assistance that Ukraine can expect from us as part of that acceleration? How is he removing some of the bureaucratic hurdles that prevent partnerships between UK industry and our friends in Ukraine from taking place? The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) raised a similar point during Defence questions, and this is about breaking down the barriers between businesses and allies, rather than a simple intergovernmental transfer of support being required. Boxing clever here could produce good results. To be the lead nation in providing support for Ukraine, we must be faster in delivering the support that is required.
On help with rebuilding Ukraine, the European Union has already set out a plan to shift frozen assets into a fund to help rebuild Ukraine, Canada has passed laws allowing it to do the same, and now the US has also drafted a Bill to do so. The Government said in July that they support using frozen assets to rebuild Ukraine, so what is causing the delay? When can we expect frozen assets to be used for that purpose? If Ministers come forward with a workable plan, it will enjoy cross-party support. This Parliament will be agreed on it, so when will that happen and what will it look like?
The Government finally decided last week to proscribe the Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation, but on 20 February this year I stood at the Dispatch Box and called for Wagner to be designated as a terrorist organisation. Labour colleagues have been doing that for some time, and the European Parliament voted for it late last year. Complacency could be the enemy of success in Ukraine, so why has it taken six months since Labour called for it to happen for Ministers slowly to grind into action? Why now, only after Prigozhin has been killed, has Wagner been proscribed in that way by the United Kingdom? That is a lengthy delay, and it would be useful to understand why we were so out of step with our allies when it came to Wagner. Will the Minister provide an assessment of the risk that Wagner troops pose to Ukraine, including the thousands still based in Belarus?
Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, I and Labour colleagues have responded eight times to debates, statements or urgent questions concerning Ukraine. Time and again in such debates we have reiterated the urgent need for a stockpiles strategy to sustain support for Ukraine and rearm Britain. Time and again, the Government have failed to provide a coherent long-term stockpiles strategy. That is not good enough. Our generosity to Ukraine, correct as it is, is depleting our current military stockpiles, and despite the Government having known about this problem for over a year, they continue to act too slowly to replenish them. The capability gaps that are being created are concerning, because if we want to be in this for the long term—and I believe that on a cross-party basis we do—we cannot afford capability gaps. Nor can we afford to empty our cupboard to ensure that the front line is well supplied, while having nothing for our own defence, that of our allies or the continuing support we need.
Next generation light anti-tank weapons have been vital to Ukraine, and it was 287 days after the invasion before the MOD got its act together and signed a new contract, with the first newly made NLAWs not due until 2024. What active steps are the Government taking to improve the British magazine depth, as the Americans would describe it, and our stockpiles? Does the Minister accept that the UK needs a stockpiles strategy so that we can finally shift parts of our defence industry and MOD procurement on to urgent operational footing, to ensure that that we have the supplies of both the armaments and the military systems that we need to ensure long-term support? At the moment the Government are continuing to fall short on that front.
Jim Shannon
I have been listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about NLAWs, and there was a very quick response—some credit should be given to Thales for its response when the Government put the order in. Almost straight away Thales was able to respond, manufacture those NLAWs and get them out to Ukraine. Some credit must be given to the Thales factory and the workers back in Belfast, for what they were able to do.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention, because it gives me a chance to thank not only those in Britain’s military industries who have been supporting the effort in Ukraine, but those in Plymouth who are supplying the parts that go into some of the missile systems that are made in the factory mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. This is a long-term effort, and that is why we need a stockpiles strategy to ensure that investment is going in across the United Kingdom, especially in missiles and missile systems that are proving their worth on the battlefield in Ukraine, but that were developed, designed and built many decades ago, and that we have been using as part of our stockpiles ever since.
The Government need to show us that they are learning the lessons from the war in Ukraine, and part of that is about our homeland defence and how we better protect these shores. There was a brief mention of that in the defence Command Paper refresh published recently, but in light of developments in missile technology and the weaponisation of drones that has been on display in both Ukraine and Russia, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what the Government are doing to protect the UK and our own homeland defence from such threats. Our cities are as vulnerable as Russian cities to those kinds of attacks, and as we begin the autumn and winter months we must learn from the experience of the attacks in Ukraine last year, especially Russian targeting of supply chains and, importantly, civilian energy installations. What are we doing in advance to ensure that those energy installations are better defended, and that there is an ongoing supply of power? I realise that there will be things the Minister cannot say, but I am sure there are things he can say to ensure certainty in this House. Russia will try to force Ukrainians into darkness once again. What additional support can the UK provide for increased Ukraine air defence, which is critical to ensure that Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure survives over the winter?
Ukraine must win this war, and Russia must lose. The former Defence Secretary understood that well, and his successor must now give that his full focus when he can. The new Defence Secretary has taken this job at a time when political leadership is just as vital as military leadership. Earlier this year, his predecessor conceded in the Commons that successive Conservative Governments had “hollowed out and underfunded” our forces. Since 2010, the Government have cut 25,000 full-time soldiers from the British Army, removed one in five ships from the Royal Navy, and taken more than 200 aircraft out of RAF service in the last five years alone. As the new Defence Secretary takes his place, he should pursue an accelerated UK plan to help support Ukraine and defeat Putin. First, he must accelerate military support, secondly he must redouble UK defence diplomacy to help maintain western unity, and thirdly he must spell out the long-term security guarantees announced with G7 partners at the recent NATO summit.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman is giving full solidarity, and the pledge on behalf of the Labour party to continue the Government’s policy in Ukraine is extremely welcome and will be heard around the world. Does that extend to guarantees on funding for defence? I appreciate that this is a loaded question, but will the hon. Gentleman match whatever the Government promise to spend on defence?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman invites me to write Labour’s manifesto from the Dispatch Box, and I am sure that the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), would not be too keen on me doing that. Let me say clearly that Labour in power has always spent what is required on defence. When we left power we were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, a figure never matched by Conservative Governments in 13 years. It is important that when it comes to defence, we not only have a reasonable budget for security, but that the money is well spent.
What we have seen recently, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is a huge amount of waste in MOD procurement. That is not only on wasted systems, but through money going to foreign contractors that in the Opposition’s mind should have gone to UK contractors, because we believe in building in Britain first and foremost. As we have seen from the recent Royal Fleet Auxiliary solid support ship contract, which was sent abroad rather than to a UK supplier in its first instance, we are seeping money out of our system when we allow such contracts to go abroad. We need to make sure that as we build new platforms, there is an adequate work share for all partners involved. There is a balance to be struck, but I take the challenge that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am afraid he will have to wait for our manifesto for those commitments.
The final thing I will do is to thank all the communities up and down the country that have been supporting our Ukrainian friends throughout the 564 days since Putin’s illegal invasion. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you have been supporting people in your constituency in Doncaster and met some of them to thank them for their support. Members from both sides of the House have been supporting their communities over the summer recess, including in making sure that Ukrainians who have come to the United Kingdom can remain here. In particular, I pay tribute to some of the Ukrainian young people in Plymouth who have succeeded in achieving GCSEs and A-levels, despite the enormous pressure upon them and their families. In many cases, they were studying subjects in a new language and a new country while their friends and families are facing bombing and attack in Ukraine. It is an incredible achievement, and I put on record our thanks and, I am sure, those of the entire House to all those British families who have been making Ukrainians welcome here in Britain.
We still have a lot more work to do, and our commitment needs to be long term, not only in our military support for Ukraine, but in our support for Ukrainians for whom it is unsafe to go home. For as long as it is unsafe, we need to make sure there is a safe home for them here. Should there be a change of Government at the next general election, there will be no change in Britain’s support for Ukraine. We must rise to the same heights as our Ukrainian friends to ensure that Putin loses and Ukraine wins.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The paralysis of the G20 statement reflects the difficulties of the geopolitics we face. The absence of a communiqué to confirm that it is Russia at fault here shows what leadership is still required in leaning in to what is happening in Ukraine. This remains the biggest war since world war two. Although it is dragging on—as the Minister for Armed Forces said, we are on day 564—we should not be desensitised to what is happening; we should be concerned that there continues to be economic and security disruption right across the continent. This is a test of our staying power and our ability to continue our support. To dry up our support for Ukraine is exactly what Putin wants us to do.
Since the last time we had a debate on this matter, dramatic events have taken place over the summer. They affect what is happening on the ground in Ukraine and in Russia, and they could be game-changing. It is worth remembering that Putin thought he could win this war because he saw a divided Ukraine. President Zelensky did not enjoy the command and support that he has today. If we go back to the Maidan in 2014, Viktor Yanukovych was pressed by Putin to lean his country to the east when it was clear that the nation—or at least half of it—wanted to face the west. Putin saw the west being risk-averse in wanting to support Ukraine in its hour of need. He then pressed further by taking on Crimea and the Donbas. Again, the west did little. He then invaded in 2021, as we know, hoping to repeat what happened in 1968, when the Soviets marched into Czechoslovakia with 50,000 troops and, I think, around 5,000 tanks. It was the courage of Ukraine that meant it stood up to the mark and stood up to the third largest army in the world.
This is where we can pay tribute to what the British Government have done, because there has been commendable engagement, even prior to the invasion itself. They have provided those important anti-tank weapon systems, training on Salisbury plain, those main battle tanks—the Challengers—as well as Storm Shadows and Brimstones. They have been leading in the Ramstein group, co-ordinating efforts with other allies to make sure that Ukraine has the necessary military assistance. We have learned and become less risk-averse as time has moved forward, conscious of the escalatory ladder and knowing we are dealing with a nuclear power that has invaded another state. The west has rekindled its cold war statecraft skills, but the fundamental issue is: if we want Ukraine to win and Russia to lose, we should not be half-hearted in giving what Ukraine requires. We need to be fully committed to giving Ukraine the tools to succeed for victory.
It has been clear and mentioned already in the Chamber today that the war has not gone well for President Putin. He expected a quick win and is now frustrated on the frontline. There is little to show for his efforts. He is using conscripts and prisoners and having to replace successive generals, because command and control is not what it was. He has spent the past 23 years coup d’état-proofing, as it were, the Kremlin, Moscow and Russia to make sure that he will not be removed, because that is the Russian way. Russian leaders remain in power because they exhibit strength and are infallible. As soon as they show any signs of weakness, that is when the oligarchs, the elites and so forth realise they can no longer have their back watched by the leader in charge, and they move to replace them. That is what we are seeing today because of the game-changing events involving the Wagner rebellion and Yevgeny Prigozhin. His removal by Putin was inevitable, for the very reason I have just raised: when a Russian leader is attacked in any way, it is the Russian way to crush one’s enemies—to remove them and to eliminate them in one form or another.
Prigozhin did something exceptional: not only did he challenge Putin and bury the myth that this war was going well, but he used his own forces to charge up through Rostov-on-Don towards Moscow. That illustrated that no Russian forces were able to take on the Wagner Group—the private army—to prevent a coup d’état and a mutiny. That weakness is now recognised across Russia; Putin’s time will eventually be up.
The other dynamic is that, of all the fighting forces in Ukraine, the most powerful, capable, potent and best equipped was the Wagner Group. It had the best equipment and was the most motivated. It has now been removed from the battlefield and that provides an opportunity for Ukraine.
Lots of western pressure has been placed on Ukraine, saying, “We have given you all this expensive, exceptional, ever-complex equipment. Why has the counter-offensive not advanced further?” Again, it is because—this happened in the second world war—various phases of operations need to be conducted. We have seen Ukraine probe the frontline across 1,000 km, and we are now seeing advances taking place as it penetrates through complex minefields and anti-tank defences, particularly in the Zaporizhzhia region. That is the progress we need to see, but we need to exhibit patience. This is not going to happen overnight—there will not be a quick phase of war, with this all being over by Christmas.
What Putin is now realising is that this could be the beginning of the end of his war in Ukraine, and it could be the beginning of the end of his existence as leader, too. I do not believe he will be replaced overnight, but I do believe that the weakness exhibited is enough to unrest and unnerve many of the leaders in Russia who will be looking for a replacement in the longer term. We therefore need to be cautious and perhaps stand up to those voices in the west who are saying, “Let’s draw a line. Let’s start negotiating. Let’s get round a table and draw a close to what is happening in Ukraine.”
We need to recognise the bigger picture and what Putin —indeed, even his successor—might be trying to do, and that is to expand Russian influence in the Slavic area of eastern Europe. Again, that is the Russia way. Let us go back hundreds of years; the view has been, “If we are not being attacked, the best way is to attack, otherwise, our defences will not be enough to hold the motherland together, so let’s take advantage of the west’s weakness or risk-averseness.” I am pleased to see that we are now starting to change that.
What is next for the west? Absolutely, we must keep up that military support—that is the tactical that has been talked about today—but I would advance two further areas where we could do more to support Ukrainians. First, we must recognise that more than $300 billion-worth of frozen assets belong to Russia. We need to develop a legal mechanism that would allow each month about $20 billion of that to be slid across the table to Ukraine to help in its reconstruction and development. That might focus minds in Russia—in Moscow, in the Kremlin and Putin himself—that the longer the war continues, the more Russian money it is costing.
Secondly, I would stress the grain shipments—I brought them up with the Prime Minister—which are critical for Ukraine as well as fundamental for our own economy, where food inflation remains in double figures. I would stress the symbiotic relationship between our economic security and our national security. I am pleased that the Government are organising and participating in a global food security summit. I hope that we will look towards creating some form of expeditionary force that can provide the necessary defence and support for a maritime taskforce to protect those ships and ensure they can depart from Odesa to feed the rest of the world.
I end simply by stressing what I think many colleagues will express: because our world is getting more dangerous, not less, our peacetime defence budget of just over 2% of GDP is simply not adequate. We had the 2021 integrated review, which introduced so many cuts across all three services. Because of Ukraine, we had another IR—IR ’23. Unfortunately, none of those cuts was reversed. I hope that the new Defence Secretary, who has the Prime Minister’s ear, will be able to persuade him on that and recognise that we have done so much in advancing our hard-power capabilities, but we need to go further because of where this very dangerous world is now headed.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak from the Front Bench for, I think, the third time today. On this subject, however, I think there will be much more unanimity and agreement across the House.
As someone who has been speaking about the plight of Ukraine essentially since I was elected in 2015, I have always been happy to state my support and that of my party for the Ukrainians’ ongoing struggle to establish control of their homeland across the full extent of their 1991 borders—and as someone who it is fair to say has never been shy in criticising the Government when they deserve it, I think the political will they have shown to remain ahead of the curve when it comes to the international response is to be commended. Given that my opinions and those of my party are well understood and an matter of extensive record in the House, I intend to keep my remarks relatively short, but needless to say it is important to reflect on where we are at this stage in the war.
It is fair to say that a little too much pressure was put on the Ukrainian armed forces before their summer offensive. Not only is it an eternal adage that no plan survives contact with the enemy, but Russia had a significant amount of time to dig in as well as to learn from the mistakes it made at the beginning of the conflict and adapt. These Russian forces are riddled with corruption, clientelism, cronyism, racism and poor morale, as witnessed by the attempted coup, as was mentioned earlier. However, that does not mean that they are entirely incapable of learning on the battlefield and, as satisfying as the initial successes of capabilities such as Javelin or Himars were, there is no doubt that they adapted and changed their approach, becoming a harder opponent to break down in the process. That said, recent advances are to be welcomed, and the sacrifices made by the armed forces of Ukraine in advancing past those initial lines in certain areas should be recognised. While it may be all too soon to talk about whether this is a breach, a breakthrough or anything more, it is welcome news at the end of the summer.
I have always been one of those who have felt it important to allow Ukraine to lead this strategy. I hope that we will not be hearing anything more of the veiled criticisms of that that emerged from some allied quarters. It is a similarly solid adage that things always take a little longer in war than is initially anticipated, and we know that it will be perseverance and adaption in response to the battlefield in front of them that will win the war for Ukraine. Our patience and resolve are therefore needed at this time along with an ongoing appraisal of what we can do to continue supplying matériel to Ukraine that could prove decisive. In that context, the recent conversations about the army tactical missile system are most welcome and it will hopefully provide the opportunity to strike deep behind Russian lines and further disrupt the morale of those Russians preventing a Ukrainian advance.
Our patience and resolve must extend further. I will never tire of saying here that winning the peace in Ukraine, and providing the funding for the civilian authorities there to rebuild after the conflict is over, will be as important as winning the war. That work will probably take decades and I believe it is already beginning. Again, I commend the Government for the work they have started on that with this year’s donor conference held here in London, but we cannot take any of this for granted.
Let us not be naive. The Kremlin’s strategy is, as we have heard, to try to wait Ukraine and its allies out. It is placing a lot of hope in an amenable result in next year’s US presidential election. While we cannot thank our American friends enough for the breadth and depth of their bilateral military and economic aid to Ukraine, we know that that that has become something of a live question in that country’s political debate. We should prepare ourselves for the possibility that that bilateral support may not continue in its current form. It is therefore most disheartening to read reports in the press of former UK Prime Ministers stating publicly their preference for candidates in that election who have pledged to roll back support for Ukraine. It would be most disheartening should broader culture war tropes that have infected the American debate on Ukraine also cross the Atlantic. I therefore hope that we can continue the agreement on the broad strategy of aiding Ukraine, while of course reserving the right occasionally to disagree on how best to do that, and show patience and resolve as they go about liberating their homeland.
I am happy to say that I have the unwavering support of my party for those sentiments. It passed a motion on Ukraine at last year’s party conference, which stated unequivocally:
“As a party which has as its founding principle the ability of people to self-determine, Conference...states unequivocally that Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhizhia are all Ukraine.”
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The people of Ukraine are suffering in a manner that we in Britain are unaccustomed to in recent times and we are horrified by. Russian forces are committing war crime after war crime with no regard for civilians, including women and children. While visiting the Ukrainian town of Irpin, just north-west of Kyiv, in February, I saw what the local Ukrainians referred to as the cemetery of burnt cars. That was what was left on a day when families had packed what they could to escape the Russian advancing forces, but they did not make it out because the Russians fired upon them, killing those attempting to escape. It could not even be said that they were killed by stray small arms rounds. Looking at the number and size of the holes in the backs and sides of the cars, it was clear to anyone that those poor people were deliberately targeted by heavy weapons.
All that is taking place on the continent of Europe, in a sovereign state with a parliamentary democracy. The people of Ukraine are fighting for their lives and their freedom and democracy—our shared values. In August, I was able to visit the frontline, south of the city of Zaporizhzhia. I spoke with some of the troops, and it was great to see the very high morale among them. Many of those brave men were trained in the UK, especially the gunners trained at the Royal School of Artillery in Larkhill. I was proud to see British kit and equipment used in the fight to eject Russians from Ukraine. I saw an AS-90 gun, which had come from my son’s regiment, 1 Royal Horse Artillery.
The Ukrainian gunners spoke to me about how they preferred British ammunition because the charge bags did not fall apart and the gun barrels needed less cleaning. We saw the guns in action, with rounds landing on Russian targets. They asked me to convey their thanks to the Prime Minister, the Government and the House of Commons for our unwavering ongoing support. If Ukraine is to win the war, the Government must continue to provide such equipment, weapons, training and aid. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s announcement of plans for an additional UK-led training programme, to include Ukrainian fighter jets and marines.
Over the weekend I made my third visit so far to Ukraine, when I attended the Yalta European Strategy conference with other Members from across the House. We discussed the power, importance and profundity of Ukraine’s ideals; how helping Ukraine is best for global peace, security and the global economy; and how we may bring this illegal, bloody, terrible war to an end. Since the war started in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea, and the subsequent expansion of Russian aggression in February 2022, Ukrainians have proven themselves to be a strong, determined and fiercely patriotic people, who are passionate about defending their home of beautiful and diverse landscapes, as well as preserving their culture and traditions. With many refugees from Ukraine now living in our constituencies in the United Kingdom, I hope Members across the House have sought to experience that culture, along with many of our constituents.
The United Kingdom coming to the aid of Ukraine is imperative in defending the freedom of our friends overseas, but those working on that noble effort are also contributing much here at home. MOD Defence Equipment and Support—DE&S—at Abbey Wood in my constituency employs several thousand MOD personnel, who are not only running the entire procurement for our armed forces, but are largely ensuring that the Ukrainians get all the equipment they need. At Prime Minister’s questions back in June, the Prime Minister joined me in paying tribute to all their work. In addition, there are several defence companies in my constituency with hard-working teams working around the clock, developing the technology and equipment that will continue to help Ukrainians liberate their country.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for sovereign defence manufacturing capability, I follow these issues closely. At an event hosted here in the House of Commons by Leonardo and BAE Systems, we discussed the incredible support that the British defence manufacturing sector is providing the Ukrainian military. While in Ukraine in August, I met the then Ukrainian Defence Minister, Oleksii Reznikov, to discuss defence procurement and how our countries are working and will continue to work together in this area. To that end, the APPG is currently running an inquiry on the impact of the Ukrainian war on the resilience of our defence industrial capacity and capability, not only to continue to supply and support Ukrainians but to look at our own stocks and how we can replenish them.
I have been in discussions with British companies who want to co-operate with their Ukrainian counterparts. The need for closer co-operation between our two countries is urgent; unfortunately, some elements of the bureaucratic machinery here seem not to have woken up quite yet to the urgency of the situation. The Ukrainian defence industry has high levels of skill, innovation, synergy and capacity for manufacturing advanced technology, as well as basic mechanical components. The Ukrainians need the materiel, they need it now and, what is more, they want us to produce some of it jointly.
Ukraine is a significant trading partner of the UK, the EU and our NATO partner Turkey. Ukraine’s exports of iron ore, semi-finished iron, seed oils, wheat and corn are vital to the rest of the world, as has been demonstrated by Ukraine’s recent difficulties in exporting those goods. For foreign direct investment to return to Ukraine, Russian forces must be out of the country entirely, and programmes must be in place to ensure peace, stability and protection from attack. That will provide better security of commercial assets, factories, offices, technological systems and so forth. Therefore, securing a victory for freedom in Ukraine, as well as the stability of the region, is of the utmost importance in helping to maintain global trade, peace and security.
Only once Russian forces are expelled from the whole of Ukraine will Russia learn that it cannot prey again upon Ukraine, or allies such as Poland and Estonia, without terrible and catastrophic consequences. Guaranteeing security and stability in the region is paramount for the resumption of trade in and out of Ukraine, as well as for foreign direct investment in the country. However, for that to be achieved, we must be willing to do whatever it takes to help defend our friends and defeat the Russians.
On the future for Ukraine, the United Kingdom should be at the centre of promoting security guarantees for the country, and assisting and supporting its application for NATO membership. The rebuilding of towns, cities and infrastructure must be a priority for the international community. Such proposals being part of future foreign aid expenditure, incentivising FDI by the British private sector, and having multilateral asset transfers and other reparations are all worthwhile suggestions for funding the reconstruction.
To sum up, the United Kingdom’s defence sector, much of which is based in my constituency, has been at the forefront of defending freedom in Ukraine, as I have seen at first hand on the frontline. His Majesty’s Government must continue to lead and to ramp up support for Ukraine to ensure victory and lasting peace, and to promote the rebuilding of the country and its economy and prosperity. Together with the Ukrainians and with the help of our allies, we will finish the job.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who I seem to have been following recently. Just this weekend we were at the Yalta European Strategy conference, and before leaving for Ukraine we were in Leeds, which I will come back to. At Yalta European Strategy we were joined by the Minister; the shadow Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty); my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely); and the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), who is not here. We had a strong UK contingent. However, my journey into Ukraine this time starts a bit earlier, with the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke and the Leeds Ukrainian community centre, for Ukraine’s national day.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking groups—which I am such he is about to mention—such those in Newport West, who have joined together to fund medicines, equipment, money and all sorts of vital things to go to Ukraine to support the war effort and the people of Ukraine?
Alex Sobel
Absolutely. It is incredible to see groups up and down the country doing that. At the event that I attended in Leeds at the Ukrainian centre, I was shown a picture of a support vehicle that they had bought and were taking to Ukraine. It had been purchased thanks to an auction in Morley and Outwood, which I attended with the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Dame Andrea Jenkyns), where I bought a vyshyvanka, which I wore in Ukraine. The auction raised enough money to buy that vehicle. We have seen such activities right across the country.
Exactly two weeks ago today, I set out to Ukraine from Dover with the Ukraine Freedom Company, Emergency Ukraine and Macclesfield Ukrainian Aid, taking five vehicles of aid. That is the second time the APPG has done that this year. We not only talk about the support we will give, but deliver in a practical way to the people of Ukraine. We left to go through the Eurotunnel and had to cross four different sets of customs borders. At each stage there were minor delays, and there was quite a long delay at one, which I will come back to. The UK Government need to do more to ensure that small, local voluntary organisations can get through those customs borders quickly, because they are volunteers and they will not wait three, four or five hours at each border. The UK Government need to speak to their partners to ensure that that does not happen.
We left and drove through France, Belgium, Germany, Hungary and Romania, and arrived at the Danube where we crossed into Ukraine. The next day, Shahed drones attacked the very same port where we had crossed the Danube. That reflects—others have mentioned this—the importance of the fertile Black sea plains, which produce most of the world’s sunflowers, much of its grain and, in Kherson, the world’s best watermelons. The ports are being attacked because the Black sea grain corridor is now closed.
We drove through the night from the Danube to Odesa. I have never seen so many heavy goods vehicles in all my life. It made the route down to Dover look like a small car park. They were there because the grain cannot be taken from Ukraine by sea. It has to be driven to Romania or other Black sea ports and then transported on. It is a purposeful attack by the Russians to try to close the port, so that not just us in Europe but those in the Gulf, the horn of Africa and right across the global south do not receive this vital food. It is an act of ecocide.
We arrived in Odesa and met the mayor, Gennadiy Trukhanov, who highlighted the strikes on vital infrastructure. We visited the headquarters of a local mobile telephone company and were shown how the Russians had stripped out telecommunications. The UK must do more to support Ukraine’s telecommunications infrastructure, because without it, it cannot progress the war or support the nation.
From there, we travelled to Mykolaiv and met the deputy mayor for infrastructure. We saw the devastation and the need for reconstruction. We then went to a town—this was one of the most horrifying things I have ever seen in my life—called Posad-Pokrovske in the Kherson region where not a single building was undamaged. Nearly every single building had been destroyed. What had been supplied for the people by the international effort were, effectively, plastic boxes. We went into one and it must have been 50° in there. They were horribly hot in the summer and they will be freezing cold in winter. We must do more to support civilian infrastructure, in particular housing, in areas that were occupied and destroyed by Russia but are now liberated. Brave Ukrainians are living in their hometowns without decent housing, so much more needs to be done. Some of the aid partners we went with are now committed to trying to bring housing solutions to them. I hope the UK Government can work with them.
Afterwards, we visited a renewable energy project—a wind farm. There is an irony here in that half the wind farm was completed after the Russian invasion. Just last week we had a wind farm auction in the UK where nobody put in a bid. In Ukraine, however, they can somehow build them in the middle of a war. It is a part of Ukraine’s security strategy, and is not just about climate and transition. It is easy to take out a single power station, but much harder to take out a distributed network of wind or solar installations. Again, the UK and other partners need to support and invest, because this is not just about peace and rebuilding; it is about the war effort now.
We then went on to Kharkiv. Leeds is in the process of twinning with Kharkiv. I am really proud of our efforts and we will put our full support behind raising money and delivering for the people of Kharkiv. I met the mayor, Ihor Terekhov. The north of the city had been assaulted. We visited a school that was the same distance from the centre of Kharkiv as my children’s school is from the centre of Leeds. It had been completely destroyed and gutted, and the children do not have adequate school facilities. We went to multiple blocks of flats which had been destroyed. In all locations—this was the case in Posad-Pokrovske, too—we were told, “You cannot walk over there or over there,” because they were heavily mined. People are living and children are playing in places next to areas that are mined. At the rate the area is being de-mined, and at the rate of de-mining in previous conflicts, it will take 40 years or more to de-mine Ukraine. That is just not acceptable. In liberated areas, we need to step up and support the de-mining effort, because without de-mining there will be no reconstruction.
We met some troops from the frontline—Kharkiv is not that far from the frontline. There is a lot of talk about Russian troops not being as good. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) mentioned Wagner and said that Russian elite troops are now no longer on the frontline. We asked the troops what they thought of the Russian troops they were fighting. They described them as worthy adversaries. They are taking nothing for granted. They are on the battlefield risking their lives. We should not think that there is an easy victory here. Every inch of ground is hard-fought and hard-won.
After Kharkiv, we went to Kyiv and, as the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke said, to the Yalta European Strategy conference. I will not go into great detail about all the speeches and meetings that took place, but there were a number of takeaways. We have been hearing, more or less from the start of the conflict, about the need to close the skies. It is still being discussed. We are only now in the early days of training pilots. Why were we not training pilots much earlier? Why are we not much further on? I know the UK does not have F-16s, but the point stands. The Ukrainians were very grateful for the Storm Shadow missiles from the UK, but the missiles they have are the export variants. I will not go into detail, but to be able to prosecute within the territory of Ukraine, they need the Storm Shadows that we use because their range is greater.
The Minister needs to redouble his efforts and look again at our stockpile of weapons and what will help Ukraine to progress the war quickly. I warn Ministers that in Kyiv the view is beginning to set in—the UK is not at the front of this; other countries are—that whatever is asked for arrives but takes too long, is too slow and too bureaucratic, and that the supply is to keep the war going and to ensure Ukraine does not lose, but not to ensure the speediest victory. That is a deep concern of the people in Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine who are progressing the war.
We need to do everything we can to ensure a rapid victory, because the Ukrainians are not just fighting for themselves. They are fighting for democracy, our way of life and our civilisation. One of the most interesting speeches at the conference was by Timothy Snyder, a Yale professor, who said that in the 4th century BC, Athens was able to have a democratic republic because it was supplied with grain by the Scythians in the Black sea region—now southern Ukraine and Crimea. That is the history of the region. Without Ukraine, we all fail. That is why we need to step up our efforts on every front to ensure the war is completed and there is not a single Russian soldier on Ukrainian territory.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a real honour to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for the work they continue to do to lead the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine.
This evening is possibly the last warm and balmy evening of the British summer. We are on a one-line Whip and I suspect there will be wine glasses clinking on the Terrace. It would be very easy to forget about Ukraine. I am therefore very grateful for this opportunity to bring us together and ensure that we do not forget the people of Ukraine. Freedom and democracy matter, and it is in Ukraine that the war between freedom and oppression is being fought out. I thank the Minister for Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) for giving us such a detailed update on the current military situation.
Sometimes it is difficult to think about the human cost of the war. I was looking for some numbers because I am a mathematician. Although Kyiv does not release estimates of the numbers of military killed, there is a recent estimate that Ukraine has lost 70,000 military personnel. The number of those wounded is estimated to be between 100,000 and 120,000—and more on the Russian side as well. Human Rights Watch suggests that 9,500 civilians have been killed, of whom 550-odd were children, that 17,000 civilians have been injured, of whom 11,000 are children, that 16,000 children have been stolen from their parents and abducted, many never to be seen again, and that women and girls as young as four and as old as their 80s have been raped and sexually assaulted.
When the invasion first started we said that Russia must not be allowed to win, because we knew that if that happened, Ukraine would not be the last: that brutality, that barbaric behaviour would continue. Time and again since the invasion, Russia has blatantly disrupted global supply lines of food and fuel, driving up inflation, hiking up food and fuel prices, and hitting the customers and consumers in our own constituencies—but hitting the world’s poorest and most vulnerable hardest. There is no end to the Russian evil, so the UK has led from the front, through military support, through sanctions, through humanitarian and military aid, and in so many other ways.
I was very pleased when we led the Ukraine recovery conference. I went to a reception at Lancaster House afterwards, and it was uplifting to see many of the Ukrainian friends whom I have made over the past year and a half. Their faces are normally so harrowed, but there were genuine smiles because of what had been achieved during the days at the conference, and the hope for the future. It is great news that the UK will host a conference on food security as well. We must stand shoulder to shoulder for as long as it takes.
The human cost, as well as the infrastructure costs, will take a long, long time to mend. My constituency is home to Blesma, formerly the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen’s Association, which has been supporting male and female veterans who have lost limbs since the aftermath of the first world war, when 40,000 servicemen lost their limbs. In the 90 years of its existence it has supported 60,000 people who have lost limbs in war, and today it is supporting 2,800 members who have lost their limbs in British conflicts in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland and, in a handful of cases, back in the second world war. Blesma told me that in the period between the start of the war in Ukraine and the beginning of the present offensive, more than 5,000 Ukrainians had already become limbless: 5,000 in that year and a bit, in contrast to the 2,800 who lost limbs in our wars dating back to 1945.
The president of the commission for the rehabilitation of veterans in Ukraine—it is a long title—has estimated that many, many more multiples will be affected. Many multiples more will be injured, and between 10% and 15% of veterans will have serious injuries, including limb loss, loss of part of limbs, and/or post-traumatic stress disorder. The human cost of support will go on for decades. It is a sad part of our own history that the UK has particular expertise in caring for these veterans, and I was moved to learn that charities such as Blesma, Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion have already been “leaning in” with support and advice for our friends in Ukraine.
As others have said, it is crucial that Russia pays for the damage that it has done—not just the physical damage, but the damage to humanity. I was very pleased when the Prime Minister announced earlier this year that the frozen assets that we have in the UK would not be defrosted, or taken out of that freeze, until Russia had paid. We need to make sure that every pound and every dollar that can be raised for Ukraine is being well used. I therefore gently ask the Minister whether, in his closing remarks, he can give us an update on what has happened to the Chelsea football club money, the £2.3 million of Abramovich funds, which I believe has still not left the bank account to help with humanitarian aid. I think I was possibly the first Member to call for Wagner to be proscribed, so I was pleased by last week’s news; it has been a very long time coming.
Over the summer, I have been more and more concerned about what has been happening in Africa and across the Sahel. The civil war rages on in Sudan, where ethnic cleansing is continuing in Darfur and elsewhere. That is important, because we know that Russia controls the gold, and we do not know where the gold from Sudan is going. We have seen a worrying military coup in Niger. Was it a coincidence that Prigozhin was at the Africa conference just before he died, stirring up malign activity again across that part of the world? I believe that Russia likes to cause further instability in parts of the world that are already unstable. The Russians know that instability will lead to further humanitarian disasters and further migration, and they know that that migration will put more pressure on western Europe and western European allies. The fact that the head of Wagner may have died in a plane crash does not necessarily mean that Russian malign influence through evil proxies—or the risk of that—has gone away. I therefore say to the Minister, “Please keep a very close eye on that Russian malign influence, and the malign influence of others in that part of the world.”
Every day in Ukraine, military personnel and civilians face brutality and horror that are unimaginable, and they react with bravery and fortitude that are incredible. We must leave no stone unturned, and we must continue to support them for as long as it takes.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is a privilege to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who gave us a heartrending reminder of what life must be like in Ukraine right now. I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and other Members who spent the weekend in Kyiv at the Yalta European Strategy conference. I found it, in fact, offensive that the Republican candidate Ramaswamy described as offensive the fact that we have professional politicians making a pilgrimage to Kyiv. I say hats off to those people, and I think that that candidate for the US presidency would do well to make the journey himself.
On 20 September last year, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), committed the UK to spending £2.3 billion on military assistance for Ukraine. The expenditure in that year, 2023-24, was the same as that in the previous year. Liberal Democrats welcomed the announcement at the time, and we continue to welcome the fact that, per head of population, the United Kingdom has been as generous in the gifting of materiel to Ukraine as the United States has been. I will return to the subject of British military assistance at the end of my speech.
I would like to talk about two specific things today that are probably a little bit operational in nature: drone attacks on Russian soil and the supply of cluster munitions. Then, finally, I would like to comment on when might be the right time to move the conflict to the negotiating table. This is Russia’s war. It is Ukraine’s defence, and it is not for Ukraine’s allies and partners—and not for the UK in particular—to tell Ukraine how to fight it, but we have seen a couple of developments since the House last held a general debate on Ukraine, in February, that I would like to comment on.
It is entirely possible that the drone attacks in Russia are the work of Russian dissidents in Ukraine. The level of dissent is difficult to judge from afar. If those drone attacks on Russia were the work of the Ukrainian Government, they would be legal as an act of self-defence in accordance with the UN charter, but we have seen how galvanising the attacks on Ukrainian cities have been. We need only think of the devastating effects of the various railway station attacks in 2022 to imagine that if Ukraine were to attack Russian cities, it could have the opposite effect to the one that was intended.
What of the supply of cluster munitions? The United States announced in July that it would be supplying cluster munitions to Ukraine. We know from the use of cluster bombs in Kosovo, where I served, that unexploded ordnance including cluster bombs killed many innocents in the years after the war, including tens of children. As the United States’ closest ally, it is our responsibility to speak out when we think our friend has made the wrong decision. Given that some in the US want to supplement the existing provision of cluster rounds for artillery with cluster munitions for rocket systems, it remains, to my mind, the responsibility of the British Government to speak privately but frankly. We need to pledge support for Ukraine for the long haul, rather than simply offering munitions that it is easy or convenient for us to give from our existing inventories.
On the sum of money that the UK should give next year, it is an interesting coincidence that we saw £2.3 billion of frozen assets from the sale of Abramovich’s Chelsea and that the UK Government are currently giving £2.3 billion to Ukraine in military assistance. In September last year the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), made an announcement about £2.3 billion being made available this year. That expires in April, so now that we are in September once again, it would be good to hear from the Minister what sum the MOD is seeking from the Prime Minister and whether the Ukrainians can depend on the same amount of money again.
May I also ask the Minister whether NATO members are contingency planning for the withdrawal of generous funding from any one of our members, so that Russia cannot wait this out? I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) that Russia could potentially be seeking to do that. We need to give Russia absolute certainty that it cannot simply wait this out, and that the partners and allies of Ukraine are in this for the long haul.
Finally, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) dismissed the voices calling for an armistice and a negotiated settlement based on the current lines and the current occupation of territory. I would go further and suggest that the reason for not accepting such a settlement is that the vast majority of Ukrainians do not want it. As someone who believes in liberal democracy—as I believe we all do—I believe that it is only for Ukrainians to determine when the conflict is fit to be taken to the negotiating table.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Apologies for my absence earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your understanding.
Like others here, I spent roughly a week in Ukraine last week, with two and a half days in Kharkiv, Kramatorsk and Konstiantynivka—which was also sadly bombed—followed by two days in Kyiv, along with the co-chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), to understand the changes on the battlefield, to see what was happening in Ukrainian society and also to understand the Ukrainian way of fighting and how it is evolving, some of the Russian changes and whether there needs to be some tweaking to the support we provide—the training and other things that we can do.
I want to look first at the Ukrainian style of fighting. It is always a pleasure to listen to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Armed Forces and he will probably be interested in this because, as a former serviceman, he was used to the intense tactical battles in Helmand and Sangin, and we are seeing something similar in Ukraine. If a Ukrainian way of war is evolving, it is being formed around creative problem solving and around strongly empowering junior officers because they need to make decisions. There is a real mission command culture, which is radically different from Russia with its intense hierarchy that effectively slows operations down massively.
There is a volunteer culture and an openness about using external support—perhaps unlike the British Army at times, dare I say it—which makes up for the Ukrainian army’s size. The most obvious example of that external support and the volunteer experience is in the use of drones, which is well documented, with commercial drones now being engineered for military work as well. Other examples include patriotic businessmen raising regiments—I have had the pleasure of meeting a few—and the original use of commercial comms kit. When I was in an ops room near Kramatorsk, they were using gaming software to communicate with the frontline, their mortar positions and their drone positions. They had basically taken the commercial gaming software used by the shared gaming sites around the world and were using it in battle. There is very much an emphasis on what works.
There is also a focus, as I am sure the Armed Forces Minister will appreciate, on the tactical battle rather than on large-scale manoeuvres, which cannot be carried out because Ukraine does not have air superiority and its forces are faced with kilometres of mines in front of them. Perhaps most importantly, commanders are having to fight in a very economical style because there is not much kit. Long-range missiles are used sparingly. Even standard 155 shells are fired back at the rate of maybe one for every five or sometimes one for every eight. Russia is still using between 10,000 and 40,000 shells a day, and we really underestimate the scale of resource needed.
This is also about having to conduct assaults while minimising casualties, and it was remarkable how many of the military vehicles we drove past were medical vehicles. It was quite upsetting at times. Having to assault while minimising casualties means that the Ukrainian forces are not assaulting with a traditional 3:1 ratio. They are having to assault effectively while being mindful that the Russians can lose four people for every one the Ukrainians lose. If Putin were given the option of sacrificing another 500,000 Russian lives for 150,000 Ukrainian lives, he would take that, because that would effectively shatter Ukraine’s volunteer army. So there has to be an economical use of force.
The Russians are changing and learning. They are doing it slowly, but we should not delude ourselves that they are not doing it. I would that anyone who wants to know what is going on on a daily basis and to understand the tactics of the war reads the report by Jack Watling from RUSI and the one from the Institute for the Study of War. Jack has said:
“It is also important to recognise that Russian forces are fighting more competently and with reasonable tenacity in the defence”.
That is the critical point. The hon. Member for Leeds North West and I had a conversation with soldiers who they were saying that the Russians were fighting well enough. They were not dismissive of their enemy, because the Russians are dying in place. If they are retreating, it is a controlled retreat. They have a depth of defence that they did not have last September. This is a big argument against tactical or strategic pauses, or indeed negotiations, because every time the Ukrainians stop, the Russians will dig more lines. I see no evidence that a collapse like the one that happened last September in Kharkiv is going to happen again. I wish it would, but there is no evidence.
I spent about 24 hours with a unit called Tsunami, a volunteer unit out of Odesa with additional soldiers from the Luhansk area, which is right over in the east of the country. They are a lovely bunch of people and I am incredibly grateful to them for hosting us. I was in their ops room, 20 km or so from the front. It was a very professional ops room with lots of screens and drone screens, and we were watching a tactical battle as it was taking place in Bakhmut. They were using gaming software, as I said, to connect drone operators with small teams on the ground. In some places in these villages and streets where people are dying in large numbers, as has been happening over the last few months, the soldiers are 50 metres apart. Normally at a British shooting range, we start at 100 metres and go up to maybe 400 metres. On the Ukrainian training grounds, a mile or so out from the frontline, they are practising trench clearance and doing range shooting at 50 metres, because 50 metres is probably what they are going to be up against in and around Bakhmut and other areas of the frontline because those frontlines are so close together.
The command guys in the Tsunami unit had a lot of communication with the teams on the ground to walk their mortars into position. Their drones and the base were communicating using gaming software—there were lots of screens—to strike the Russian position with 120 mm mortars, reducing it to rubble. They were watching for the splash every couple of minutes, adjusting their aim until, unfortunately—well, fortunately, but sadly—they killed the Russian invaders. I take no pleasure in saying it, but huge numbers of Russians are dying, which is a tragedy for them on so many levels. The Russians fought until they were killed. The Ukrainians also took three prisoners that day, one of whom was carrying propaganda cards explaining why they were fighting. An argument is being put for why they are there.
During the 24 hours I was there with that one unit, there was one Ukrainian dead and seven injured. We sat down with the commanders and asked, “How much land have you taken, and what are your casualty rates?” We worked out that a man is dying every 80 metres or so. They are fighting and taking back their country, but every 80 metres, and certainly every 100 metres, on this section of the front a man is giving up his life for that small piece of ground, and that is not including the injured.
One of the improvements in Russian arms is the Lancet drone, which is now made in Russia. Some of us went to see the head of the National Security Council on Saturday afternoon, and it was explained to us that there are 490 bits of kit in that drone, 60 of which are still coming from the United States and the west. Sanctions leakage is still doing damage to the Ukrainian war effort, and it is killing people.
These guys are rotating out every 24 hours, and we went to see them in the house they had rotated out to. When the people we met the day before went back to the frontline, their soft-top vehicle was struck by a Lancet. One of them was killed, one lost his testicles and two others were injured. A price is being paid. There is no war weariness in Ukraine, but nor is there the early rush of adrenalin they had when the initial positions collapsed last September. There is a grim realism that this will potentially be a long war, and that tens of thousands more people will die. Even if we accept a quarter of a million Russian casualties, we have to accept that if Ukrainian casualties go above 50,000 it will have a phenomenal effect on that society.
On the military convoy train that we took back from Kramatorsk, I sat opposite a lovely guy called Volodymyr, who was going back to comfort his wife because his brother-in-law had been killed on the southern front the week before. We know that drones are critical, and the Russians are improving their drones.
I will finish with a few points about how we can maximise our positive influence. The Government are doing a phenomenal amount, on which I congratulate them. I have some mates who are involved in the training, and I was chatting with them the other day. They love training these Ukrainian soldiers, so this is not a complaint but a suggestion for how we can train them a little better. Ministers will know from their experience in Afghanistan that the OPTAGs—the operational training and advisory groups—went out into the theatre and continually tweaked our training. Every time there was a change in the Taliban’s tactics, it would come back very quickly to the training programmes that people attended. I wonder whether we can speed up our learning from the battlefield in the drills we are putting these guys through. I worry that five weeks is not enough, and I know the Armed Forces Minister would say that is what the Ukrainians want and that that is how much time they are giving us, but I wonder whether a week or two extra, with a few more significant exercises built into the programme, could help to keep more of these fantastic guys and girls alive.
Looking at that OPTAG experience, is there more we could do to get drones involved in the training exercises? This is effectively a tactical war of 120 mm mortars and drones, and sometimes big, fat, horrible artillery shells. The problem is that we do not have enough drones in the British Army, and we do not have the commercial drones that could help. If the Armed Forces Minister is minded to do so, I wonder whether we could see how we can speed up our learning from the Ukrainian frontline, in the same way that we did with OPTAG. There is also a question about whether we can further vary some of the special purpose courses we are doing for the special purpose units—I will not say where it is—at one of the bases that is hosting the Ukrainians.
There are a few little tweaks, but the head of the National Security Council also made a wider point to me about the desire for a strategic relationship with the UK. Having listened to the Armed Forces Minister, it is very difficult to argue that we do not have a fantastic strategic relationship, and I am mindful of the fantastic work this Government have done. Indeed, I pay tribute to Boris Johnson. I know he is not popular with some Members, including on the Opposition Front Bench, but he is phenomenally popular in Ukraine, where people still see him as the man who helped to make the difference. Whether the Opposition like it or not, the Ukrainians love us partly because they are very grateful for what Boris did. They want that depth of strategic relationship, and I wonder whether there is more we can do across the board. We have done huge amounts—lots of short-term stuff and some medium-term stuff—but they complain that not enough Ministers come out. They say that Tel Aviv gets bombed more often than Lviv. People can easily get insurance to go to Tel Aviv, but they cannot get insurance to go to Lviv. Is there more we can do on the insurance market? I know we are doing good stuff on the grain convoys, but we are not quite there yet.
The Ukrainians are talking about wanting a greater strategic relationship. They love this country, and they see us as their closest political and military ally, although they know they are getting more kit from the US. I just wonder whether we can formalise that depth of relationship for the benefit of both our nations, not only in the short term but in the medium and long term too.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their pertinent and appropriate contributions touching on all the important subjects. The key point coming out of the debate is our strength of purpose, as the Minister illustrated, in standing by Ukraine. Each and every Member has mentioned that.
I thank the Armed Forces Minister not only for his gallant service but for his clear commitment and for setting the scene so well today. Many of us thought that he would be called to higher office, which may still happen, but we are very pleased to see him in his place and to hear his contribution.
The UK Government have stood fast by Ukraine, and they have committed themselves to the military help that is needed. They have done so much, and they have never been found wanting. Over the last few weeks and months, I have been somewhat concerned about the apparent weakness of the Biden Administration, bearing in mind that their overarching interest may be not only in helping Ukraine but in reminding Russia that it cannot simply do as it pleases. Through our conversations and speeches today, we are encouraging our Government and the whole of the west to stand firm. There must be a clear message.
Like other Members, I care about the personal suffering of those men, women and children who are victims of Putin. They have lost loved ones, lost their homes, lost years of education, lost confidence and lost themselves. I care for those people who refused to cower before Putin’s demagoguery, and for all the Ukrainians who are defending their homeland, their way of life and, ultimately, their freedom. Their battle for freedom is our battle for freedom, too. The job we have to do is clear.
I have been reading a lot of commentary on the current situation in Ukraine, and I was struck by a comment in the Telegraph outlining the scenario if Ukraine cannot stay strong and bring Putin to the negotiating table:
“If anything like this scenario plays out, a humiliated West will need a robust damage-limitation strategy. This would involve building up Nato forces, which still has not yet been seriously approached on either side of the Atlantic. There is no indication, for example, that Germany is budgeting to reach the minimum Nato defence spend of 2 per cent of GDP, despite promises. The UK continues to make further cuts to its undersized army.
A second prong would be continued economic warfare against a weakened Russian economy, to emphasise the price for waging aggressive war and undermine Moscow’s ability to rearm.”
That is the view of the commentator in The Telegraph. I cannot disagree with the fact that more does need to be done and that the countries that are not stepping up need to do so to bring Putin to the negotiating table. Not enough is being done to step it all up.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) referred to an incident where one Ukrainian was killed and seven were injured. The one good thing—if anything good comes out of war—is that, because the healthcare and response times have been so significant and helpful, many people who are injured do not die now, as they have would have perhaps in the past. The medical treatment is so significant that they live. The medical progress has empowered the emotional and post-traumatic stress disorder support that is given.
I am proud of our Government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme and the fact that Ukrainians have been able to come over and be safe here, in my constituency and in others. But I also know that many of those I have spoken to want to have a safe place back home. Some who are here will probably stay; many others want to return home. They want their children to return and they want to work in Ukraine. They want to go home and rebuild, and they want us in this place to help them to do that. So the Government and the west have to be thanked for their clear commitment to rehousing and to rebuilding. I want to put on record my thanks to Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct in my constituency, which have offered jobs and even accommodation to Ukrainians, and were among the first to make that available. The Ukrainians have integrated greatly into society in my constituency, and I am very pleased that the Government have made that happen.
We need to encourage fellow NATO countries to change what they do, to contribute more and to give the full commitment. Words have never impacted Putin, but action does. As a nation, and as a full member of NATO, we need to increase the military equipment. We need to act on behalf of not only the Ukrainian people, but the ideal of democracy and a free world. Russia is not the only superpower that watches us. The statement earlier today referred to China. The Chinese are very aware of the steps that have been in the news over the weekend. It is clear that the message that has been sent is not a deterrent—it could, should and must be.
As chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, I wish to comment on the evidential base coming out of Ukraine that shows that the Russians have persecuted Christians and those of the Ukrainian Church. I am a member of the Baptist Church, and my church and the Baptist religious groups also support many missionaries out in Ukraine. We were aware early on in the battle for Ukraine that some pastors had disappeared from the eastern part of Ukraine. They have never been found, but no action has been taken to try to find out what happened to them. We suspect that they have been murdered simply because of their religious belief. I know that this is not the Minister’s remit, but I must put on record my concerns about those persecuted Christians and other ethnic groups in the east of Ukraine, where Russia has taken over and systematically, brutally and violently killed and displaced many, many people. We have seen attacks upon the faith, religion and churches in Ukraine, and the theft of historical and church artefacts. Again, I have great concern over where we are. Like others, I hope that the day will come when we can see the retribution and the accountability—something in the process that makes Russia accountable, financially, physically and emotionally, in every way possible.
So I ask the Minister to firmly outline how we are going to take even more decisive action, that words are not enough and that the actions that we take are the strong ways of doing things. The long-term security of the free world will rest on decisions taken not just by our Government, but by NATO as a whole and our allies. These decisions must be taken soon, before Putin and China decide to press on against what appears, in some eyes, to be a weakened west. We must stand strong for Ukraine and for the freedom, liberty and democracy it has, because the threat to it today is a threat to us tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank colleagues across the House for their considered contributions to today’s debate. It is important that the House has the opportunity, soon after the summer recess, to debate Ukraine, and the egregious and illegal war against its people, For me, as for a number of Members here today, this debate is particularly timely. Like the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), I have just returned from Kyiv; I came back yesterday. I had meetings there with senior Ministers, officials, parliamentarians, members of civil society and aid workers, and I heard from many in the Ukrainian military. It was clear to me that, despite a profoundly challenging summer of Russian bombardment and the ongoing counter-offensive, the spirit of Ukraine continues to burn bright. The resilience and courage that we have seen endure throughout Russia’s years of aggression, which we must remember started in 2014 or even before, have never been more evident, from the individual citizen to the soldiers on the frontline.
During our visit, we had the privilege to meet many who had returned from the frontline. It is a pleasure to be opposite the Minister, who, as I said, was also in Kyiv—that is illustrative of the unity in this House and in this country and our resolute support for Ukraine against Russia’s aggression.
Of course, I draw attention to my current and future declarations in relation to the visit to the Yalta European strategy conference and other events. The title of that conference was “The Future is Being Decided in Ukraine” and it is clear that it is. This is not just about the future of Ukraine or of European security; it is fundamentally about the future of the world and whether we want to stand up for democracy, the rule of law, the international system and the principles that have guided us since 1945, or whether we succumb to autocracy and barbarism.
We have heard some excellent contributions today. It was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) at the start, who clearly set out the military needs of Ukraine, which we must continue to deliver on with our allies.
We also heard important speeches from the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who was there with me as well and who talked about the importance of the UK training and the industrial support we must continue to provide; from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who spoke about the importance of medical aid; from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who talked about the support from UK citizens, which of course has been there from my constituents; from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who spoke about the impact of veterans—we met many veterans in Kyiv—and the work of Blesma, which actually supported my grandfather, who served at Arnhem; from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), who always gives hugely informed contributions and was a pleasure to travel with; and from the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). However, I want to single out my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), not only for the comments he made about the importance of dealing with the delays facing small organisations providing aid, the issues relating to grain exports, the importance of getting those Black sea routes open, and the issues affecting children and schools, but for his bravery and resilience in travelling with a number of others, including people from across the UK, who are providing critical aid to communities that have been devastated by the Russian aggression. I thank him for all the work he did on that visit.
I took away three major reflections. The first is that Russia’s barbarism knows no bounds. I heard horrific stories about what happened in Mariupol—stories of torture and abuse. I heard of the horrors of what has happened to children, not just in the east of Ukraine, but in Crimea—I heard about the false narratives about Crimea and we met a special representative of the president for Crimea. I heard about the attacks on civilians, which occurred in the market while we were there, and about the daily impact on the lives of Ukrainians.
I was able to travel over to the left bank of Kyiv with an MP, Lesia Zaburanna, who has also visited my constituency to thank UK volunteers supporting Ukraine and meet Ukrainian refugees. We were able to go into some of the bomb shelters that Ukrainians have to spend so much time in under those aerial attacks and to see how children were able to carry on their education. Tragically, they were doing it in bunkers underneath their schools and they are having to do that multiple times in a week.
I also took away the continued strength and resilience of Ukrainians. The fighting is grinding, but there have been significant successes in the south and the east. Work is being done to support internally displaced persons within Ukraine in places such as Bakhmut and elsewhere, and Ukrainians who are already struggling are giving support to others who have been displaced in Ukraine. It is a whole-country effort.
Lastly, I took away the fact that our support is making a critical difference, whether we are talking about individual aid convoys, Government-to-Government support, which we in the official Opposition fully back, or the crucial diplomatic support that we are providing on so many levels to maintain the coalition. I underline Labour’s enduring support for the people of Ukraine and our unshakeable commitment to them and the wider NATO alliance, and to all those facing the consequences of the war. If a Labour Government were elected, there would be no change in providing the necessary economic, diplomatic and military support to Ukraine and in supporting Ukraine’s reconstruction.
I add Labour’s voice to the condemnation of the sham elections that took place on Friday in Russian-occupied Ukraine. We are in absolute agreement with the Council of Europe, which described the bogus votes as a
“flagrant violation of international law”.
We also condemn the perverse attempts at continued Russification in the occupied territories. That must be dealt with, as must—this has been spoken about a number of times—the illegal and utterly barbarous deportation of Ukrainian children and young people into Russia and the separation from their families.
I want to cover a few other issues in the remaining moments. In the diplomatic sphere, the NATO Vilnius summit rightly underscored the strength of our alliance’s support for Ukraine, but there is still much work to be done. As the Secretary-General said last month, Ukraine’s “rightful place” is in NATO. Does the Minister agree that once, with our support, Ukraine has prevailed in its war against Russia’s invasion, there can be no Minsk III and that Britain should play a leading role in securing Ukraine’s path to joining NATO?
We heard the concerns that the Leader of the Opposition raised with the Prime Minister about the G20 declaration. Will the Minister say more about that and why there was no specific mention of Russian aggression, which is plain for the world to see? Will he say what we are doing to support President Zelensky’s peace formula and how we are working diplomatically to support those aims, securing Ukraine’s future sovereignty and territorial integrity? As has been said, we do not want false negotiations when, frankly, this could quite easily be solved by Russian troops getting off Ukraine’s soil.
The crucial United Nations General Assembly meeting is coming up in New York. What plans do we have there to further support Ukraine in our diplomatic efforts across the world and through the United Nations?
On sanctions and Russian state-owned assets, the Minister will know that 75 days ago, we passed a motion in the House relating to the Government bringing forward a Bill to seize and repurpose Russian state-owned assets. It was supported across the House, and there are 15 days to go. Will he give us an update on when the Government will introduce legislation to seize, not just freeze, Russian state-owned assets and use them for Ukraine’s reconstruction? We have seen the progress being made in the US Congress and by other international partners, so when will we get on with it?
Significant concerns are being raised about the circumvention and enforcement of our sanctions regime. A lot of hard work has gone into our regime, but unless it actually delivers, a lot of papers and orders passed by the House will be meaningless. I raised specific concerns with the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), who is responsible for the Asia-Pacific region, about growing evidence of the transport of Russian-origin crude oil being refined in third countries and exported onwards—skirting existing sanctions regulations—into countries that have sanctioned its direct import. I am sure that all Members would find the possibility of the importation of Russian-origin oil, irrespective of its constitution, deeply troubling and recognise that that runs counter to our efforts to undermine Putin’s war machine. Will the Minister tell the House whether oil originating from Russia and being refined elsewhere is reaching the UK or our allies? If so, in what quantities, and what will we do to close any such loophole? Similarly, we also need to close any loopholes that exist for steel and iron, which have been raised regularly with me, and dual-use items, which were rightly raised in relation to the components used for drones.
When are we going to get on and prosecute people for sanctions avoidance? I find it hard to believe, given that the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the US has managed to clamp down with a number of sanctions-busting measures for individual companies, that we do not seem to have done any of that in this country.
We continue to support a special tribunal for the crime of aggression. Will the Minister say more on that? We are a member of the core working group but our support appears to be tentative. When are we going to get on and move that forward?
The Ukraine reconstruction conference was an excellent event. I was pleased to be there—many of us attended—and I was delighted to be invited. There was a real sense of spirit in the room about what was going to be done. Will the Minister update us on what has been delivered since the conference?
Will the Minister say a bit about de-mining? That has been raised a number of times in this debate and it is crucial to the military operations and to economic reconstruction in Ukraine. It took us 38 years to get mines out of the Falklands; we have to be up to dealing with the scale, time and cost of the task.
Will the Minister also join me in welcoming the very clear messages that we heard from President Zelensky and others about reform and dealing with corruption, and so on, and making sure that there is zero tolerance of that in Ukraine? It was very pleasing to hear some of the comments that the President and others made. I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming them.
There is a huge amount more to be done in support of Ukraine. We must continue to stand with Ukraine in everything, in every aspect that it needs, until it is victorious over Russia in the defence of its territory. We must remember that this is not just about what happens to Ukrainians and to their country—as well as our aim being morally just, it is absolutely right for our national security—but about what happens in the world more generally. Russia must be defeated, Ukraine must win, and we must stand the course with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
I am very grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their thoughtful and useful contributions. Like many in the Chamber, I have just returned from Ukraine and the Yalta European strategy conference. While I was there, I saw at first hand the tragic impact of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion, and the ever-inspiring bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people. At the conference and in my meetings with the Deputy Foreign and Defence Ministers, I underlined the UK’s unwavering commitment and determination to help Ukraine win the war for as long as it takes.
As I said, I am grateful for the many contributions today. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke of the brutal warfare that has been inflicted on Ukraine, the Ukrainian counter-offensive and the heroism of Ukrainian forces. He spoke about the headwinds that exist for Putin and the fact that he has not achieved his strategic aims. The hon. Member also praised the UK’s Operation Interflex effort, to which we are entirely committed, and it was very welcome that he reiterated Labour’s continued support for the Government’s policy.
The hon. Member asked some good questions, including on frozen assets and when we might move from freezing to seizing. A considerable amount of institutional effort is going into looking at that and we will keep the House updated as we progress through that issue. He endorsed the Government’s approach to the Wagner Group. I assure him that we are acutely focused on its continued malign activities, whether in Belarus or beyond.
The hon. Member asked some good questions about UK stockpiles. MOD colleagues are working very hard across industry to ensure that we grow the capacity. A lot of that work is wrapped up in the Defence Command Paper. He made some good comments about drones and drone attacks. I confirm that we are working on that kind of technology as well, and we are helping Ukrainians to improve and expand their critical air defence. The hon. Member was not very clear on Labour’s endorsement of our plans for defence spending, but the House will make its mind up on the future importance of that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) gave a very useful speech outlining the geopolitical context and made an important reference to the experience from Prague in 1968, which informs how we see Russian malign activity. He spoke of the need for statecraft on behalf of the west and the fact that commitment is needed. I assure him—this was my message to our friends in Ukraine on Friday—that that commitment is unflagging.
My right hon. Friend spoke about Putin’s brutality and the crushing of the Wagner Group, and the fact that that is a sign of weakness. He asked some good questions, again, about when we might move to seizing frozen assets. We will keep the House updated as and when we develop our plans on that. He spoke usefully about the importance of Ukrainian grain exports. We are very much focused on that, given Russia’s totally unacceptable undermining of the Black sea grain initiative.
My right hon. Friend also made a plea for more money to go into defence expenditure, which is good because this Government have delivered a unique £24 billion increase in our defence budget. Colleagues across the House will be very grateful for that.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) delivered a commendably and characteristically knowledgeable and wide-ranging speech. He spoke about the importance of lethal aid, but also about the reconstruction efforts that should happen concurrently. He posed the question whether the west can stay united and stay the course. Having heard the collective view of the House and having been to Ukraine last week, I think the answer to that question is yes. No matter the machinations of European politics, overwhelmingly the collective interests and the security of the west—including, of course, the US—are furthered by continuing to support our friends in Ukraine.
I am grateful for the reflections of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on his three visits to Ukraine, covering the ground in Irpin and giving us the striking image of a cemetery of burnt-out cars. I am also grateful for his reflections on his visit to see artillery—British-supplied artillery—in action, taking out important targets, and on the importance of the Yalta European Strategy summit and the need for continued UK resolve. The House will agree with his analysis.
We are all very grateful for the reflections of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) on his remarkable and very long journey with the aid vehicle delivery, undertaken over the last two weeks. The way he spoke about the terrible destruction in civilian areas was very moving, as was his description of the grain industry destruction as ecocide. We agree with his analysis. He also spoke of the destruction in the Kherson region, the importance of air power and of our continued support for our Ukrainian allies and the urgency of the situation. I am sure we are all grateful for his remarks.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) gave an important and moving speech about the human costs of this tragic war. She reflected on the important work done by Blesma, which we entirely endorse. She asked a good question specifically about the assets from the sale of Chelsea football club. We continue to work on that. It is important to get the vehicle right to distribute those funds, and we will keep colleagues and the House updated as those plans develop. My right hon. Friend spoke from a background of considerable knowledge about Wagner’s malign activity across Africa and elsewhere. I assure her that we are institutionally watching this very closely and will take steps to counter such activity.
We are grateful for the reflections of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who made a very useful contribution, particularly bringing into view the necessity of continued NATO unity. We should never take that for granted, and we will always be at the front of the pack in making those arguments.
The House will have appreciated the detailed reflections of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on his recent long visit. They were most welcome. He spoke knowledgeably about the Ukrainian style of fighting and their economical approach, but also about the formidable depth of the Russian defence, which is a particularly important shaping context. He gave some unique insights into his time with the tsunami unit and spoke of their astonishing casualty rates, which showed us the heavy costs of this war. He made some useful comments about our efforts in Operation Interflex. I saw our right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces nodding during that part of my hon. Friend’s speech, and I am sure that his comments will be taken on board.
My hon. Friend also made a good point about our long-term strategic relationship with Ukraine. That is exactly what I was discussing with Ukrainian Ministers on Friday in Kyiv. We are already in the middle of a deep and wide strategic relationship with Ukraine, but I am sure that we will formalise that as we move through the more dynamic stages of this conflict.
The House is, I am sure, grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for his characteristically useful and powerful speech. He spoke about the utility of lethal aid, but also about the importance of Russia’s accountability for its outrageous actions. I assure him that we are focused on that. In Kyiv last week, we continued our discussions on the right sort of vehicle to hold Russia to account, and we will keep the House updated as and when that process develops.
I am very grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). It was fantastic to see him in Kyiv last week. He spoke correctly about the Ukrainian spirit burning brightly. That is exactly the impression I got, and I share his analysis. We continue to be grateful for the Opposition’s support for our policy. He spoke of Putin’s barbarism and asked a very good question about NATO accession. Following this conflict, the path toward NATO for Ukraine is of course clear, and we will be at the front of the pack in ensuring that that path is a smooth one.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about Zelensky’s peace formula. We will help Ukraine to win; that is the best step toward peace. We will keep the House updated on seizing frozen assets. He made some good observations about circumvention, and we are focused on countermeasures to that. He also spoke about a special tribunal. We have to get the legal vehicle right and make sure it is legally watertight. We are very focused on that with our Ukrainian friends, and we discussed that again in Kyiv on Friday.
The hon. Gentleman asked questions about the Ukraine recovery conference and de-mining. We are putting cash and institutional effort into de-mining efforts through the HALO Trust. We are also encouraging our Ukrainian friends to reform their state, to ensure that all the innovation and progress made during the conflict is sustained and benefits Ukraine in the long term. I discussed that with Ministers on Friday.
As the Prime Minister said from this Dispatch Box earlier today, having spoken to President Zelensky before the G20 summit:
“Backed by our support, Ukraine’s counter-offensive is making hard-won progress. We will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, until we see a ‘just and durable peace’ that respects its sovereignty and territorial integrity. That is the only possible outcome to Putin’s illegal war, and Ukraine, with our support, will prevail.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.
Electoral Commission
Resolved,
That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will re-appoint Dame Susan Bruce as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2024 for the period ending 31 December 2026; appoint Sheila Ritchie as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 February 2024 for the period ending 31 January 2027; and appoint Carole Mills as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2024 for the period ending 31 December 2027.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Railway Station Ticket Offices
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of just over 3,000 of my constituents in Westmorland and Lonsdale in which they urge rail firms to cancel their plans to close the majority of the remaining 1,007 ticket offices across England, saying that these offices and their staff provide vital services to ensure the accessibility of train services for all passengers, and that these staff are crucial for disabled and elderly customers and visitors to the area. The petitioners request the House to urge the Government to take into account their concerns and take immediate action to drop plans to shut railway station ticket offices, especially those in Oxenholme, Penrith, Windermere, Appleby and Grange.
The petition states:
“The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that rail firms should cancel their current plans to close the majority of the remaining 1,007 ticket offices across England; further that these offices and their staff provide vital services to ensure the accessibility of train services for all passengers; and further notes that these staff are crucial for disabled and elderly customers and visitors to the area.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to drop plans to shut railway station ticket offices.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
[P002851]
Scottish Football Association: 150th Anniversary
(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I begin my remarks by reminding the House of my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a match official operating for the Scottish Football Association.
I am delighted to lead this Adjournment debate celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Scottish FA. Throughout my speech, I will look at the past and to the future, but it is also right and fitting that we look at the present and the current qualification status of the Scottish men’s national team. Friday’s 3-0 victory over Cyprus made it five wins out of five in the qualification for Germany 2024. Scotland sits proudly at the top of group A. Another table that Scotland is at the top of is goal scorers, where we see Denmark’s Højlund, Belgium’s Lukaku and Scotland’s McTominay, each of whom scored six goals in this qualification round. Not only is Scotland leading its group, but it is leading in goal scorers as well.
When preparing for this debate, I went on the UEFA website for the Euro 2024 qualification. There, the picture was of two Scottish players—John McGinn and Scott McTominay—celebrating another victory. Scotland is featured in the picture and caption because as soon as tomorrow night, Scotland might have sewn up its qualification for Euro 2024. If my maths is correct, Scotland would then be the first team to have qualified, along with the hosts, Germany. They are the only team able to qualify on matchday six, which shows how impressive the current team is under the expert management of Steve Clarke.
Hampden will be rocking tomorrow anyway when the heritage match against England takes place as part of the 150th anniversary celebrations. It will be an outstanding match—on which I will say more in a moment—but at the same time results up in Oslo could go our way and see Scotland qualify for Euro 2024 tomorrow night. What an atmosphere there will be at Hampden if that score comes true and we qualify directly for the tournament.
The Scotland-England heritage game is part of a series of events held over the past year to celebrate the 150th anniversary. Earlier today the two team captains, Andy Robertson and Harry Kane, met at the West of Scotland cricket club to promote tomorrow’s match. That was the site of the first ever international match between Scotland and England. The game will be the 116th meeting of the two nations. So far, England have won 48 and Scotland have won 41. I note that few English colleagues are present in the Chamber; I think that reflects their concern about the match tomorrow. It is called a friendly, but there is never a friendly between these two nations and it will be competitive to the very end. Given the way Scotland are currently playing, I do not think many people would bet against them.
As I said, I want to look back at the history of the game. Given that the Scottish FA is celebrating its 150th anniversary, it was of course formed in 1873, but football has been played in Scotland as far back as the 15th century, when the public played royalty. At that time, and for many decades, football was prohibited under the Football Act 1424. It was felt that the game interrupted the men’s marital duties, so football was not allowed. I am pleased that that idea has now been dispelled. Indeed, the law fell into disuse, but it was not actually repealed until 1906, after the Scottish FA was formed.
It was at a meeting in Dewar’s hotel in Glasgow on 13 March 1873 that the Scottish Football Association was formed. Clubs including Queen’s Park, Clydesdale, Vale of Leven, Dumbreck, Third Lanark, Eastern and Granville met there, and Kilmarnock FC sent a letter of support. On that day, the Scottish FA was formed, making it one of the oldest associations anywhere in the world. Archibald Campbell from Clydesdale was the first president and Archibald Rae of Queen’s Park was the First Secretary.
Of course, the formation of the Scottish FA followed others. In 1886, the Scottish FA, along with the FA, the Football Association of Wales and the Irish Football Association, set up IFAB, the International Football Association Board, which to this day still acts as the guardian of the laws of the game. IFAB’s most recent annual general meeting was held here in the Palace of Westminster, when representatives from across world football came into Parliament.
Scotland is home to the Scottish cup, which is the oldest knockout trophy in the game. The Scottish women’s cup—I will come to this when I speak about women’s football—was revamped this year, and the new trophy that was presented is the newest knockout trophy in world football, so we have both the oldest and the newest.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is absolutely right that we all celebrate football, whether it be Scottish football or football all around the world, and as a Northern Ireland supporter I do as well. As an avid Rangers fan, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I can only take my hat off to the teams that make up a tremendous sporting section. Knowing that the Scottish FA has been in place for 150 years, I, along with other Rangers fans and, indeed, Celtic fans back home in the Province will have one thing to say in one voice: long may the Scottish FA continue.
Douglas Ross
I am very grateful for that intervention. Football needs a ball, two teams and a referee; an Adjournment debate needs an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so I am glad we got that. I know that the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments will be well received by everyone connected to the Scottish FA.
Scotland has a great tradition of managerial successes, whether for home nations or clubs or, indeed, around the world. The names Stein, Shankly and Ferguson echo through history, and Scotland has been a hotbed of managerial excellence for generations. It is a country that has created leaders and innovators in the game, with some of the world’s most celebrated coaches and managers.
I want to take a short time tonight to remember the Scotland manager who most recently took the team to qualification in a World cup. France ’98 was the last World cup tournament for which we qualified. I remember being at school and watching the first match against the holders Brazil, and Craig Brown, an outstanding manager, leading out the team with great pride. Craig Brown sadly died earlier this year at the age of 82. He was Scotland’s longest-serving manager, being in charge of 71 games from 1993 to 2001, and qualifying not just for that World cup in 1998 but for the Euros in 1996.
Anyone who was fortunate enough to have played under Craig Brown or to have met him at a football match or after-dinner event at which he spoke so well about his career and how he helped others remembers him extremely fondly. I looked up a couple of quotes from people who spoke immediately after Craig Brown’s death. Aberdeen chairman Dave Cormack said:
“He was one of those rare individuals who was not only effective at what he did but universally loved by all who got to know him. A gentleman who loved his family, friends, and football.”
One of Brown’s great friends and colleagues, Sir Alex Ferguson, described him as a “thoroughly wonderful man”. He continued:
“When I was given the honour of managing Scotland at the World Cup finals in Mexico there was one man I had to take, for all his attributes and knowledge, and that was Craig. He had a great career as a manager of several clubs but his service for his country stands out. In an industry that questions a man’s capabilities, Craig never wavered in that situation, he always kept his head and his composure.”
He really was a giant of our game and is sadly missed by many people across Scottish football.
I want to touch on another area, because although, understandably as a Scottish fan, I want to highlight and praise the current achievements of the men’s team, as in many other parts of the country the women’s game in football has developed greatly in recent years. In 1974, the Scottish FA officially recognised women’s football, then in 1998 affiliated with the Scottish Women’s Football Association. Since 1998, the Scottish FA has been responsible for the Scotland women’s national team. Indeed, in 1998 they had their biggest ever win: a 17-nil victory over Lithuania. The side has had significant success in recent years, qualifying for the World cup in 2019 and the women’s Euros in 2017. We have legends of the female game such as Rose Reilly, a truly inspirational footballer both on and off the pitch who has rightly been recognised at home and abroad for her outstanding contribution to the game.
Closer to home, away from the national team, I have mentioned previously in the Chamber the success of Buckie Ladies, who won their inaugural trophy, the Highlands and Islands league cup, in 2022, only five years after having been established. What is so special about that club is that not only does the team perform at that level in the women’s game but the club has a pathway right down to under-10s. What was so special about that win last year—I think it was at Nairn County’s ground—was that all the under-10 players and those in the age groups right up to the full women’s team joined in and went along to see that cup final success on penalties. It is great to see the team go from strength to strength.
I also want to look at disability football or para football. In 2017, the Scottish FA rebranded its work in disability football with the new brand of para-football. The brand was created to allow greater emphasis on the diverse work carried out by the Scottish FA in this area of the game, as well as to create a stronger voice for people living with varying conditions. In 2017, the Scottish FA launched its new strategy called “PlayAbility...Our Game is the Same”, which aims to create greater opportunities in para football that will allow participants to reach their full potential.
I also want to focus briefly on Street Soccer Scotland, which was announced earlier this year as the official charity partner of the Scottish FA. I was fortunate enough to be at a reception in the Scottish Parliament where we had a presentation, as part of the 150th anniversary celebrations, looking at Street Soccer Scotland and the incredible work it does. At the moment it is running more than 60 projects across the country and has 2,500 registered players, on top of the 25,000 players who have been helped by Street Soccer Scotland throughout its existence.
It is great to see males and females getting involved in football both at home and abroad in the homeless world cup, at which Scotland had success back in 2007 and 2011. In the 50 countries that have been represented at both the male and female tournaments, it is great to see that 94% of people said that the homeless world cup positively impacted their lives, 83% said it improved social relations with family and friends, 77% said their involvement in football changed their life significantly and 71% continue to play sport today because of their involvement.
There are many areas I would like to focus on tonight. I am grateful that we have a little more time because the Adjournment debate has come earlier. I want to look at the leagues across Scotland. We have the different areas within the national game—male and female, disability and other areas—but the leagues are important as well. The Scottish league was established in 1890. A league closer to home is the Scottish highland football league; many Moray clubs have had success in that league in the past and I am sure will do in the future, including Forres Mechanics, Lossiemouth, Rothes, Keith and Buckie Thistle. The league was established on 4 August 1983 in Inverness Workman’s Club, so, as part of the Scottish FA’s 150th anniversary, the Scottish highland football league is celebrating its 130th.
The Scottish highland football league continues to go from strength to strength. It draws big crowds for some of the big matches throughout the season and it is renowned for its hospitality and for the welcoming approach that the clubs take to each other and to spectators of both clubs. That is why it is so highly regarded across Scottish football and, indeed, renowned in many parts of the world as well.
If I may remind the House of my declaration of interests, I wanted to mention the referee, who is sometimes forgotten about in the history of the Scottish FA and other FAs—but not tonight, when the debate is led by a referee. Sadly at one point there was a joke, “What do you call a Scotsman at a major footballing finals?” The answer then was, “a referee”, because when our national team was not qualifying, our referees were. Some of the giants of the game—literally—were the match officials. Tom “Tiny” Wharton was an imposing figure on football pitches around Scotland and around the world, highly regarded as a FIFA match official, a FIFA observer and the chairman of the referee supervisors committee in Scotland for many years.
Other names are also well known: Bob Valentine, Jim McCluskey, George Smith and many others have made a huge contribution to the game in Scotland and abroad. Most recently, when we were not qualifying for those tournaments, that lone Scotsman at the international tournaments was likely to be Hugh Dallas. He was at France ’98; four years later, at the next World cup in 2002, there was no Scottish men’s team, but Hugh Dallas was there, not just officiating at the highest level in the world, but for the duration of the tournament. He was the fourth official for the final match, Germany versus Brazil—a Scotsman on the pitch at a World cup final. It was an incredible achievement, not only for Hugh Dallas and his family, but for Scottish football.
In 2004, Stuart Dougal was a fourth official at the Euros. William Collum led a team of officials, including Frank Connor as one of his assistant referees, Bobby Madden and John Beaton, at France 2016—again, Scottish referees at the top of the game. At home we are extremely well served in the referee department by referee observers, my own association manager Bill Machray and many people outwith the limelight of the professional game on the TV every week, who put so much into association training, the development of new referees and mentoring new referees.
Referees are an integral part of the Scottish FA, and so too are our fans. It is right that in this debate we recognise the incredible fans of Scottish football, both at home and abroad. They say if there is no Scotland, there is no party, so we certainly hope there will be a good party in Germany when Scotland qualify. The fans are the lifeblood of our game, domestically and internationally.
I must say that I joined the fans in being insulted and disgusted by the ludicrous proposals last week from the senior traffic commissioner for the United Kingdom, who suggested introducing a series of draconian rules that would have impacted fans going to and from football matches. The proposals were rightly condemned by those at the very top of Scottish football, by people from across the political spectrum and, most loudly and passionately, by the fans themselves, who could see they would be an absolute mess and completely not required in our game. Those proposals were rightly shelved very quickly, which we all welcome; they should never have seen the light of day in the first place, but it is right that they will now not be taken forward.
Another area where many fans unite is the screening of Scottish national team matches on terrestrial television. Tomorrow night people will be able to watch on Channel 4 the match between Scotland and England at Hampden Park, but too many can only watch the qualifiers on pay-per-view. Many Scottish fans reluctantly pay their subscription to ViaPlay, which won the rights to the UEFA bidding contract, only for ViaPlay to say it will not continue with the coverage in the medium to long term.
It is vital that there is work done between the Scottish FA and UEFA on that, and that the Parliaments at Westminster and at Holyrood do whatever they can. When I mentioned this issue at the Scottish Affairs Committee earlier on today, the Chair was very keen that I highlight that the Scottish Affairs Committee is looking at it and seeking to work with everyone to try to get a resolution that will allow Scottish qualifying matches to be seen on terrestrial television at all times.
I also want to mention how important football is to families. Football is a sport that brings families together, and sometimes we forget about that. We look at the big prices paid by players and the controversial decisions taken on the pitch, but we forget that this is a sport that brings people together. People take their sons and daughters and go with their husbands and wives to watch that 30-yard screamer hitting the back of the net, to complain at decisions that go against them or to be frustrated about losing a game they never should have lost. We saw during the covid-19 pandemic just how important the football community was to many individuals and families. It was often the thing that made people pick up the phone to their parents, to discuss what had happened on the livestreams that they were watching because they could not get into the stadium together.
We should never forget that the wonderful successes we have had in football across Scotland are down to fans and down to families. Anyone involved in the game at any level is doing that for the spectacle it has become and continues to be. It is so important that we recognise that involvement.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman referred to families, and I know that when my three boys were small, one of the great things we enjoyed doing was going over to the Rangers matches. We went on the bus with Ballywalter Loyal Rangers Supporters Club before Christmas and after Christmas. The boys were small and it was one of those great family occasions that I look back at with much joy and fun. The boys had an education on Rangers football club in the Broomloan stand, where the Rangers supporters all united and sang those songs. My boys enjoyed it and those are memories for our family that I will never forget.
Douglas Ross
I am grateful again to the hon. Gentleman. Those memories last a lifetime. My own oldest boy watched me officiating at his first match—thankfully, he did not understand all the abuse directed at me—and he has just started off his own interest in football at the Mini Dribblers at Elgin City football club, a great community resource that I will speak about in a bit. It is about being able to share that interest at an early age. Some families grow apart, and people leave their home area, but often the one thing that brings them back is the love of a team, of a sport, or certainly of successes for the Scottish team more generally, as is the case at the moment.
Another area that deserves recognition is that the family experience can sometimes be over an entire day—not just from the kick-off at 3 o’clock, or a lot earlier or later depending on television—and in many cases involves travelling the length and breadth of Scotland to go to the match. That goes back to what the independent traffic commissioner was trying to do. It is sometimes a whole day; sometimes a whole weekend. I travel a lot to get from my home in Moray to matches across the country.
The people who are with me for most of those journeys are Stuart Cosgrove and Tam Cowan of “Off the Ball”, which is described as:
“The most petty and ill-informed sports programme on radio!”
It is anything but; it is entertainment. Tam is a big Motherwell supporter and Stuart is a St Johnstone fan, and they are both extremely well informed about the Scottish game. They get incredible guests on every week, including Kirsty Wark, Lorraine Kelly, football stars and many others—they are part of the package. Next year, “Off the Ball” will celebrate its 30th anniversary. There are no guarantees, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we might be back here in a year’s time having a debate about “Off the Ball”. I mention it because sometimes we think about what happens on the pitch and between clubs, but people are involved in a whole process. Stuart and Tam are motivated by trying to ensure that the football experience is enjoyed by all. For me, certainly, and for tens of thousands of football fans across Scotland, “Off the Ball” plays an important part in that.
The last couple of things I will mention relate to grassroots football—the lifeblood of the game in Scotland —and our facilities. It is fair to say that Scotland is facing a crisis in football facilities and for people playing grassroots football. Now more than ever, many communities face the stark reality either that there are not enough facilities to ensure that all levels and areas of the game are fully serviced, or that, in too many cases, young people are priced out of facilities. Many new facilities get built by local authorities and others, but then simply become unaffordable; often, only the clubs that have money coming in can afford them. Even if we do nothing else after this debate, I would like us to look more seriously at the lack of facilities and availability in Scotland and ensure that they are there for the next generation.
I welcome the announcement by Department for Culture, Media and Sport of £20 million for facilities and infrastructure development, but we need to think smarter about that. Grassroots football in Scotland generated £1.3 billion in social return on investment, according to a landmark UEFA study. I hope that the people who make decisions about sporting facilities across the country, particularly football facilities, think ahead and spend to invest going forward. That money will be extremely well spent if we have facilities for our game available for all ages in all communities across the whole of Scotland.
Finally, as I was preparing for the debate, I contacted the president of the Scottish FA, Mike Mulraney, who took on the position recently. I asked him what he would say if he had the opportunity to speak in this Chamber. These are his words:
“We are grateful for the opportunity to celebrate the impact and legacy Scottish football has had on the game globally, across the UK and in communities across Scotland. My role as President is to harness that power of Scottish football and to ensure it can inspire our nation. Football should be a vital tool in the national agenda to improve the health and wellbeing of our society. In that regard, we are at your disposal: ready, able and willing to help the fight against poverty, ill health—both physical and mental—and inequality in society. I ask that we pool our resources to ensure that this game is accessible to all with no barriers. For that we need urgent investment, innovative thinking and a collective will. Football transforms lives. Football saves lives. Use our national game as a valuable team-mate in the challenges I have outlined, not a political football.”
I could not have said it better myself, and I think it right that the president’s words are heard in this Chamber and recorded in Hansard for the future.
For those who support a club, football can, at times, be challenging and frustrating, but it is always, always inspiring. It does not matter whether someone is a male player or a female player, old or young, playing at home in the United Kingdom or watching their team abroad, or whether their game is on the local pitch or at an iconic stadium around the globe. Football inspires at every level for every generation. Scotland’s place in that historical and inspirational game has already been secured. Steve Clarke and his men are writing the next chapter in the history of Scottish football. Let us ensure not just that we recognise the 150th anniversary by celebrating the past and praising present successes, but that we prepare for the future to give young people in Scotland the ambitious, outward-looking prospect of playing at whatever level they wish, at whatever ground they wish and for whichever team they wish, understanding that, over the last 150 years and the next 150 years, the Scottish FA has been and will be there to help and develop them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
On St Andrew’s Day in 1872, players from Queen’s Park football club represented Scotland against England in the world’s first international football match at the West of Scotland cricket club in Glasgow’s west end. That 0-0 draw sparked international football into life, and 115 official men’s matches have since been played between Scotland and England. Tomorrow evening they will meet at Hampden Park in a special 150th anniversary heritage match to mark the historic first meeting between the two sides. The match will also celebrate the establishment of the Scottish Football Association, which formed in March 1873 to provide a formal structure to the game of football across the country, where it had experienced a rapid growth in the previous decade.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) for securing this debate so that the House can also celebrate those significant anniversaries. As a registered match official in Scottish football, he is possibly the only person who has ever endured the—what can I say—“accolades” that come from being both a politician and a linesman. I can think of no better colleague to have secured the debate.
When Scotland played that first fixture against England, Queen’s Park provided not only the players but the dark blue kits, which it then donated to the team for future use. Queen’s Park is Scotland’s oldest club. It was established in 1867 as an amateur outfit and remained so for 152 years. The club introduced new concepts to the game such as crossbars, half-time and free-kicks, all of which were later incorporated into the modern game.
Queen’s Park was at the forefront of developing the game, so it was no surprise when Andrew Watson, one of the most exciting talents of the 1880s, joined the club. Born in Guyana, Watson moved to England to attend school, and then completed his education at the University of Glasgow. Having represented various teams across Glasgow, Watson attracted the attention of Queen’s and signed in 1880. After domestic success at Queen’s, Watson was selected to captain Scotland against England at the Oval in 1881. Watson’s achievements and influence as the first black international footballer are celebrated at the Scottish Football Museum and on a mural near Hampden Park. When Watson was captain, the Scotland team won by the margin of six goals to one—one of the biggest ever victories between the two sides and England’s heaviest defeat on home soil.
In the early days of the fixture, Scotland were very successful: until 1890, we dominated, and it was rare that England won. These days, of course, things are a bit different. A Scotland win against the auld enemy—our vaguely affectionate term for the English team—has become much more seldom. Indeed, we have not managed to pull off a win in this century, although we have come close in recent years. We have not forgotten that Harry Kane had to score an injury-time equaliser to rescue England at Hampden six years ago, when the game ended in a 2-2 draw. More recently, I was delighted to attend the European championship game between the two sides, which ended in a very nervy 0-0 draw at Wembley. That was the first European championship for the men’s team since 1996, and the first major international competition since France ‘98. The atmosphere that night was electric as a tough Scotland side fought hard against an English team filled with household names, who would of course go on to reach the final of that tournament.
The Scotland-England matches in recent years have been very close, as a resurgent national team under Steve Clarke have grown to become one of the most promising Scotland teams in decades. We currently stand top of our European championship group, having racked up huge wins over Spain and Norway this year. We are starting to dream that this golden generation of Scottish players can go further than any other in history and make it out of the first round of the Euros, or even the World cup—although I have probably just jinxed any chance of that happening.
Tomorrow night at Hampden, in the 150th anniversary game, we are hoping that this Scotland team can replicate the success of the side captained by Andrew Watson long ago. Naturally, we would not dream of a 6-1 victory: these days, given the quality in the England team, a 1-0 win would be celebrated just as loudly and proudly. However the game goes, we are surely in for a great night of football.
Over the years, these clashes have produced moments of magic on both sides. We cannot forget the 1996 European championship, when Gazza knocked the ball over Scotland’s defence and scored one of the most memorable goals—and did one of the most memorable celebrations—of the tournament, or the famous 1967 game at Wembley, where an England team filled with World cup winners such as Bobby Charlton, Geoff Hurst and Bobby Moore lost 3-2. Scottish legends including John Greig, Jim Baxter, Billy Bremner, Denis Law and Bobby Lennox were crowned the unofficial world champions that day.
Of course, we should also celebrate the great successes of our women’s team. They missed out on qualifying for this year’s World cup, but they did make it to the world stage in 2019 and qualified for their first major tournament in 2017. The women’s team provided a new group of heroes for the modern era; some also featured for Team GB at the Olympic games, including Kim Little and Caroline Weir. Scottish players are at the peak of the game across Europe. Weir currently plays for European giants Real Madrid, and other players in the current Scotland set-up include Bayern Munich’s Samantha Kerr, West Ham’s Lisa Evans, Sophie Howard of Leicester City, Chelsea’s Erin Cuthbert, Martha Thomas of Manchester United, and numerous players for Rangers, Glasgow City and Celtic.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray, the women’s team are flourishing, and we look forward to seeing the prominence of women’s football continue to grow in the years to come, as future generations are inspired by the examples they see of women competing at the highest levels of football. On the 22nd of this month, the women’s team will also take on the auld enemy, and we will be cheering them on just as enthusiastically. There is a rich history of Scotland-England fixtures in women’s football too, of course: the first official international women’s game in the UK took place 51 years ago, when England narrowly defeated Scotland 3-2. The women’s game did not receive the support it deserved in those early days, but thankfully, that has changed in recent decades.
At club level, Scotland’s teams have also punched well above their weight. Celtic’s achievement in 1967, becoming the first British side to win the European cup, is made all the more historic by the fact that all members of the “Lisbon Lions” were born within 30 miles of Celtic Park. Rangers lifted the European cup winners’ cup in 1972, and have made two remarkable runs to the Europa League finals, the most recent being just two years ago. To this day, Dundee United are the only side to enjoy a 100% win record against Barcelona in competitive European ties, winning four games out of four, and 40 years ago, the Aberdeen side led by Sir Alex Ferguson beat the mighty Real Madrid to clinch the European cup winners’ cup.
Such successes are definitely harder to come by in the new age of football, where money matters more than the passion of the fans, but this United Kingdom Government are committed to providing support to the grassroots game in Scotland as we look to inspire the next generation of footballers who will create their own legacy. In his speech, my hon. Friend emphasised the importance of investment in grassroots sports—a point well made. From 2021 to 2025, the UK Government will provide the Scottish Football Association with over £20 million to build and improve grassroots football facilities across the length and breadth of Scotland, from Stornoway to Annan and from Kilwinning to Moray, and of course we are very excited about our UK and Ireland joint bid to host Euro 2028. It would be the biggest sporting event our islands have jointly hosted, and Hampden Park would play a starring role. It is also a really positive example of how Government partners can work together to deliver for communities across every part of the UK, and Ireland too.
A passion for football is ingrained in Scottish society, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate so that we can all join together in wishing Scottish football well for its next 150 years. I am confident that we will all wish both Scotland and England well when both the men’s and women’s teams face each other over the next two weeks.
Question put and agreed to.
Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) Regulations 2023
(8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023, No. 776).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Robertson, and to welcome to her place the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney. I think that this is her first Delegated Legislation Committee. I remember my first; I was absolutely petrified. She looks a lot calmer than I was. I am looking forward to working with her as we move through what I hope will be a relatively non-controversial and consensual statutory instrument today. On that basis, I have prepared for only 90 minutes, but Members should feel free to make long interventions if they so wish.
The regulations were laid before the House on 10 July 2023. The Minister of State for Northern Ireland sends his apologies to the Committee; unfortunately, he is unavoidably absent. I am sorry that, in me, the Committee has the B team, but I am glad to support the Minister of State by taking the instrument through the Committee.
The Government are committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and our priority is to see the return of a locally elected, accountable and effective devolved Government, which is and will remain the right way for Northern Ireland to be governed. However, in the absence of a devolved Government, the UK Government are committed to acting in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland, to ensure that there is good governance and that public confidence is maintained in Northern Ireland until an Executive are restored.
In December last year, we passed primary legislation that, among other things, addressed the need for urgent public appointments to be made to a number of bodies. The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 provided for the Secretary of State to appoint a new Commissioner for Children and Young People for Northern Ireland, and further provided for the Lord Chancellor to make appointments to the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, in the initial phase of appointments. The 2022 Act provided for the Secretary of State to add to the list, by way of regulations, further urgent and necessary appointments that may arise during the continuing absence of an Executive.
The Government maintain that, while prioritising the restoration of devolved government, it is important to ensure the maintenance of good governance and to ensure that public bodies can continue to function. The appointments made to date under the provisions of the 2022 Act have contributed to that. The statutory instrument therefore includes a further list of specific offices that the Executive Office has identified as urgent and critical because of the continued absence of an Executive. The Act did not originally provide for the appointment of those offices, because urgent action was not required at that time, but because of the continued absence of an Executive, it is now critical that appointments are made to a number of bodies to ensure that they can continue to function.
The statutory instrument will allow for appointments to be made to those bodies, which will continue to safeguard the quality and delivery of services in Northern Ireland. To prepare the instrument, Northern Ireland Office officials worked closely with the Northern Ireland civil service departments, including the Executive Office, to identify further critical appointments that have arisen during the absence of an Executive, some of which have already faced difficulties and unfortunately been unable to exercise their statutory duties and functions because of the absence of Ministers.
The instrument adds to the list in section 6 of the EF Act, which will enable the Secretary of State, as a relevant UK Minister, to exercise Northern Ireland Ministers’ appointment functions in relation to the following bodies—I am assured that further information about each is provided in annex A. The bodies include the Agricultural Wages Board, the Livestock and Meat Commission, the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority, the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee, the board of trustees of the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Historic Buildings Council, the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, the Labour Relations Agency, Tourism Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. Those are important offices, and the exercise of appointment functions in the coming months is critical for the continuation of good governance in Northern Ireland.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), for standing in today and for her welcome, and I wish the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), the Northern Ireland Minister of State, a speedy recovery. I look forward to our future exchanges.
Public appointments are necessary for the continuation of good governance, and the Opposition will not oppose the regulations. I hope that the appointments to the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland as well as to positions at the Labour Relations Agency, the Policing Board and the General Consumer Council, among others, will increase social and economic confidence in Northern Ireland—so badly needed for a people suffering more than any other part of the country from the cost of living crisis.
I am pleased that the Government have been explicit in confirming that this legislation will last only as long as power sharing is suspended and that it will be overturned as soon as the Assembly and Executive resume. Having said that, I think it would be remiss of me as the newly appointed shadow Minister not to start as I mean to go on: by championing Northern Ireland. My grandparents are from Northern Ireland and I am proud of my Northern Irish roots. I look forward to visiting in an official capacity with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the shadow Secretary of State, very soon.
The Committee already knows how beautiful Northern Ireland is and how friendly its people, but it is also now the destination of choice for tech companies looking to set up in the UK and it has been listed as a world leader on climate action. To return to the subject of this statutory instrument, despite those great achievements, power sharing in Stormont is still at an impasse. It is vital that the UK Government and European Union constructively engage with the concerns of the Unionist community that have led to the current stand-off. At the same time, it is incumbent on decision makers to ensure that any proposed solutions are welcomed by the nationalist community so that the Executive can continue to operate functionally.
I am proud to be continuing a long history of Labour politicians standing up for Northern Ireland. The Labour party cherishes the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and believes that its functions and the principles that underpin it represent the best way forward for Northern Ireland. By finally restoring the Executive and Assembly, we can avoid in future the need for statutory instruments such as what we are agreeing today. That is what we all want to see as soon as possible.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the shadow Minister not only for championing Northern Ireland but for supporting this statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
4.37 pm
Committee rose.
Draft Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023
(8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 4 September. Their purpose is to implement arrangements agreed under the Windsor framework, which, as hon. Members will be aware, was announced by the Government in February this year.
The prospect of full implementation of the original Northern Ireland protocol met with some challenge from businesses and communities in Northern Ireland. Despite a range of grace periods being in place, the protocol has already led to significant disruption in the links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The central purpose of the draft regulations is to put in place essential arrangements that were agreed in the Windsor framework to address that.
The measures fundamentally recast the old Northern Ireland protocol to restore the smooth flow of trade in the UK internal market, safeguard Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and address any concerns over any democratic deficit. Importantly, the draft regulations do not establish those arrangements themselves, but provide Northern Irish authorities with powers required as a consequence of those arrangements. That will ensure their proper functioning and guarantee protection for Northern Irish consumers, in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
To enable the flow of trade once again, we are introducing new regimes for the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. First, the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme establishes a new, sustainable, long-term legal framework for trade in retail agrifood goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The new scheme will allow traders moving agrifood goods destined for the final consumer in Northern Ireland to benefit from a unique set of arrangements.
The arrangements enable consignments to move on the basis of a single certificate, without routine physical checks, and on the basis of Great British—not EU—public health, marketing and organic standards, as well as catch documentation requirements for certain species of fish. Indeed, the Windsor framework secures the disaggregation of over 60 EU regulations on goods moving to Northern Ireland via the scheme. The application of GB standards to those goods ensures a common approach across the United Kingdom. The scheme will be available to all such traders, including retailers, wholesalers, caterers and those providing food to public institutions such as schools and hospitals.
Secondly, the Northern Ireland plant health label regime will remove the requirement on plants for planting and used farming or forestry machinery to be accompanied by expensive phytosanitary certificates, which cost businesses around £150 per movement. Instead, operators will be able to register and become authorised to issue an attachable Northern Ireland plant health label for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That will help to significantly reduce the cost for businesses that move such goods to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland plant health label is based on the existing UK plant passport regime, which controls plant health in the rest of the UK and ensures freedom from pests. Previously banned seed potatoes will once again be available in Northern Ireland from other parts of the UK. They will also move under the Northern Ireland plant health label scheme.
The draft regulations will allow for the significant, pragmatic and proportionate enforcement of key elements in these new schemes. First, as agrifoods entering Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme can now meet the same public health, marketing and organic standards that apply elsewhere in the UK, relevant bodies in Northern Ireland need the powers to ensure compliance with those standards. The draft regulations ensure that existing Northern Ireland powers can be used in respect of goods that move under the scheme, including the ability to remove non-compliant goods from sale and act against non-compliant businesses. Such powers are already in place in Northern Ireland in respect of EU standards; as such, the regulations do not represent a widening of enforcement powers or additional responsibility for business. Importantly, though, they will ensure the continued protection of public health, consumers’ interests and food safety in Northern Ireland, guaranteeing that consumers in Northern Ireland will benefit from the same high food safety standards and equivalent protections as consumers in the rest of the UK.
Secondly, the draft regulations provide the necessary enforcement powers to ensure compliance with the Northern Ireland plant health label regime, in line with what already exists for the UK plant passport regime in the rest of the UK. They affect only businesses that make use of the regime and are no more burdensome than they are for British businesses operating within the plant passport regime. They will ensure that authorities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be able to manage non-compliance with the Northern Ireland plant health label regime proportionately, using the existing domestic plant health enforcement regime.
The measures are intended not to burden lawful traders but to create an equitable ground for business and protect the interests of consumers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As we would expect, the measures will have no impact on traders who abide by the relevant Great British standards for agrifood and the terms and conditions of the Northern Ireland plant health label scheme.
As we move forward with the Windsor framework, let us not forget its profound implications for trade and the economy. The framework is an innovative solution that removes the Irish sea border for goods remaining in the UK and provides a stable legal foundation for trade, allowing everyday goods to move easily while adhering to the highest standards and protecting biosecurity on the island of Ireland. The new arrangements will ensure that consumers in Northern Ireland can access goods available across all parts of the UK and that they are protected by the same high standards as consumers elsewhere in the UK.
I hope I have assured all Committee members about the purposes and aims of this statutory instrument. It is a crucial part of the Windsor framework, which the Government announced earlier this year. I am sure that we all agree that this is a positive step for business and consumers. As we take this positive step forward, let us remember that the framework is about not just trade, but securing a brighter future for all. I am grateful for Committee members’ attention. I look forward to a short debate and then moving forward.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the draft regulations. As he will know, I strongly support the Windsor framework as a way out of the mess that both the Government and the EU had got themselves into. For that reason, we will not oppose the regulations, although I want to raise some questions.
I realise that these particular regulations are principally about ensuring that the appropriate authorities have the power to enforce the new arrangements, but, as the Minister will be only too well aware, it is essential that people understand what is expected of them so that they do not fall foul of these enforcement rules. In other words, we need clarity and timely guidance. On that question, may I begin by referring to paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum? About halfway down, it says:
“The SPS Regulation will also be applicable in NI, but under Article 1(2) and Annex 1 of that regulation, the standards in directly applicable EU law are disapplied in relation to retail goods under the Scheme.”
So far, so good. It goes on:
“This means that the relevant NI legislation does not apply to retail goods under the Scheme.”
But the very next sentence says:
“This SI applies the NI legislation to goods under the Scheme.”
Maybe I have misread the paragraph or missed something, but surely the relevant Northern Ireland legislation either does not apply to goods under the scheme or it does. Which of those two is it, or are those two consecutive sentences referring to different types of goods or different circumstances?
Next, the Minister will be aware that many of those who submitted evidence to the recent House of Lords European Affairs Committee inquiry, which produced an excellent report that I commend to all Members, argued that the implementation of these new arrangements, while a great improvement on the full application of the Northern Ireland protocol, will still represent an increase in checks and paperwork compared with the grace periods. Does the Minister accept that?
Let us take an example. There is a particular issue for hauliers who carry mixed loads—I think it is referred to as groupage—some of which is for the red lane and some of which is for the green lane but all of which is in the back of the same truck. In practical terms, how will the situation be managed to ensure the right enforcement for the right lane? Can the Minister give an assurance that no goods that qualify for the green lane will be subject to red lane inspection even though they are in the back of the same truck with red lane goods? To what extent will the red and green lanes apply to the products that he referred to?
The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that agrifoods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which I welcome, will be able to meet relevant GB public health and consumer protection standards. Can the Minister therefore confirm for the record, because I understand this to be the case, that cakes and ice cream containing the food whitener titanium dioxide, which is banned in the European Union but not in the UK, can continue to be moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and sold to consumers there?
From 1 October, businesses in Great Britain will be able to move prepacked retail goods as well as certain other goods, including fruit and vegetables, through the green lane to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. These requirements will come in in three phases. As I understand it, in phase 1, the “Not for EU” label that we have started to see will be required on all prepacked meat products, meat packed on sales premises and some dairy products. I understand that compound products such as chicken kiev are included in phase 1, but composite products such as pepperoni pizza are not. I am a vegetarian, but I thought it was important to raise that point. Is the Minister confident that the new arrangements, including the difference between compound and composite products, are well understood by manufacturers and traders? Will those enforcing the new arrangements take a proportionate approach to their implementation in this case and the others he referred to?
The provisions for seed potatoes are a great step forward and I welcome them, but can the Minister clarify the situation on the movement of certain shrubs and trees—in particular, oak, yew, honeysuckle, willow, hazel, dogwood, birch, chestnut, beech, fig, ash, jasmine, walnut, rowan, poplar, cherry, and hazel and hawthorn—given their importance for hedgerows? As I understand it from the document issued by his Department on 6 September entitled “Regulated plants for planting under a Northern Ireland plant health label”, the trees I just mentioned
“must not be moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland”,
although in respect of Acer, also known as maple, Malus, also known as crab apple, and crataegus, also known as hawthorn, it states:
“Some of the species in this genus have now been approved to move”
and advises traders to
“Consult your local PHSI Inspector.”
The Minister will be aware that the inability to move certain species of tree or shrub from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for planting causes a great deal of concern to farmers, growers and garden centres. Since only some of these trees and shrubs have been cleared for movement so far, what will be the process for clearing the rest so that there is ultimately free trade in these iconic species?
Finally, on any agrifood checks, it would really help if there was a veterinary agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Perhaps the Minister could tell the Committee what discussions he has been having with the Commission about how to bring one into being, given that in the vast majority of cases we are still applying EU single market rules to the sector.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
On the basis of the Minister’s opening speech, the regulations were designed to protect Northern Ireland consumers from goods that might be damaging and that come not from outside the UK, but from within the UK. I suppose we should be grateful, although I am sure many hon. Members will ask what goods are circulating in the rest of the UK that could be damaging to people in Northern Ireland and from which they need protection, while those protections are not afforded to people in Great Britain, because there is nothing in the regulations about those goods being dealt with and prevented from being sold in Scotland, Wales or England. I was a bit bemused by that argument, but according to the explanatory notes it is central to the justification that the Government give for the regulations.
I want to look at the regulations in two ways. Some people have already given up on the idea that we have broken free of the European Union and that it no longer has any say in the United Kingdom. It is a pity that despite the fact that the Windsor framework has been place for six months, the regulations are being raced through. The explanatory notes accept that no consultation was done, even though there is a legal obligation to carry out such consultation. It is claimed that the consultation did not take place because, “We didn’t have enough time.” We do not have, therefore, the benefit of the opinions of and input from those who will actually feel the impact of the regulations on their businesses, or those who will have to ensure that they are properly enforced.
The regulations also relate to other regulations, such as the plant health regulations and the retail movement regulations that were laid just last week. They are all bound together, but we have not even had sight of them, we will not get a vote on them as they will be taken under the negative resolution procedure, and we will not have a proper discussion of them. That is one reason why people get so suspicious. What is the real motive behind rushing the regulations through?
We should bear in mind that the regulations are not primarily based on decisions made by this Government. They are based on EU regulation 2023/1231, which defines, for example, plant health labelling, which is mentioned 42 times in the regulations. They are not defined by GB or UK legislation—they are defined by the EU. The EU regulation does not even apply to the whole of the EU: it applies specifically to the UK. The requirement for the labelling is part of EU regulation, and for goods to move they have to comply with EU requirements. I know that the Minister has said that the regulations are to help to reduce and do away with the sense of a border, and the Prime Minister has said the same. But look at the conditions that EU regulation 2023/1231 imposes. The goods have to be labelled, they have to be taken over by a trusted trader, they have to have export documents, the retailer has to have a confirmed address in Northern Ireland, and the goods will still be subject to checks—10% initially, and 5% eventually.
I will be interested to hear how the Minister justifies that, because at the minute no border posts have been built to do these checks. By the time the border posts have been built, the rate will be down from 10% to 5%. Do we even have the capacity for these checks? If not—and even if we accept that checks are a good thing in the first place—what does that mean for the movement of goods and the back-up of lorries? I know that that first point will resonate with some Members. These draft regulations are dependent not on what our Government have decided but on specific regulation imposed by the EU on the Government of the UK.
My second point is about what are described as GB standard goods. Goods that come into Northern Ireland must now be examined to ensure that they comply with GB standards. Will the Minister explain why that is the case? In most cases, the standards for these goods are not set for GB alone, because they have been set by UK legislation. Why, therefore, do we have to have this differentiation? Why are goods exported into Northern Ireland to be treated as GB goods that comply with GB standards? If the standards have been set by legislation in this place, on a UK-wide basis, surely there is no need for checks to ensure that goods coming into Northern Ireland comply with GB standards, because all goods should be produced on that basis.
For the life of me, I cannot understand this. I think that the distinction has been made to provide cover. We are talking not about an international border but about border posts designed to ensure that UK standards apply in Northern Ireland. That is the only explanation I can think of for making the distinction: to try to soften the idea that there is an international border between Northern Ireland and GB. But the truth of the matter is that there is an international border for goods that go through the red lane, because they have to go through full international border checks. As I have indicated, the process is not unfettered for those that go through the green lane, because there are requirements on those goods, too.
And here’s the thing about EU regulation 2023/1231: it is clear that the EU can, at any time, without discussion with the UK Government, and without having to give a reason, remove the option of the alternative border—I do not know what else to call it. If the EU believes that the green lane is not working, or if it has other reasons for deciding to get tough, it can remove it. That is its default position. Once again, the Government are telling us, “We have a good deal and we are in control of this,” but that is not the case.
The whole point of these draft regulations is to safeguard our independence, which is why it is so important that we do not look at them in isolation. They depend on the terms of an EU regulation, which states that the border arrangements that the Minister says are so beneficial to Northern Ireland can be removed at any time by the EU. The irony here is that our own Government never sought a default position on the green lane; the only default position is on the red lane. We do not have any alternative whereby we can say, “The way in which you have directed goods to the red lane is unacceptable to us, so we will go to a green lane default position.” We have handed over to the EU the definition of the goods that can comply, we have handed over to the EU the right to decide the nature of the border between Northern Ireland and GB, and we have this justification in place.
One of the purposes of the draft regulations will be to protect Northern Ireland consumers from faulty or non-compliant goods that come from GB. If it is so necessary to have checks for such goods that are so widespread that we have to check 10% of those that go through the green lane, maybe the Minister can tell us what arrangements are in place to protect GB consumers from non-compliant goods.
If there is so much concern about non-compliant goods coming from GB into Northern Ireland and harming Northern Ireland consumers, why is there no such concern about goods coming from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland that might not comply with UK standards and from which Northern Ireland consumers need protection? Let us just remind ourselves of the food scandals that have occurred: tainted olive oil from Spain, which killed over 1,000 people; pizzas with E. coli, which killed two people; or the scandal of horsemeat in burgers that came from the Irish Republic, France and Spain. I could go on and on about food standards. Indeed, a recent report stated that EU consumers were at a health risk from faulty goods because of inadequate policies and the inadequate policing of food standards in the EU.
If the Minister is so concerned about protecting Northern Ireland consumers from goods that are made in the UK, which presumably do not go through the same checks for GB consumers, why is there no concern about goods that cross the border—and not just into Northern Ireland? Do not forget that Northern Ireland is a conduit for goods that can come from Europe into GB. The justification for the draft regulations does not seem to stand up when we look at things in that way. We deserve an explanation from the Minister as to why, if there is such a fear, it is not dealt with on both sides. I suspect that some of the reasons behind the draft regulations that have been given are not valid and do not carry any serious weight.
Although the new arrangement is presented as an improvement, the Minister has already said that many of the goods that will now be caught under the draft regulations, and have checks imposed on them were not subject to checks under the Northern Ireland protocol because of grace periods. This situation is actually worse, because the grace periods disappear. As a result, more goods will have to go either through the red lane for full international checks, or through the green lane.
I do not want to go through the Minister’s claims, because a lot of this is anecdotal, but I can tell the Committee that promises such as free access to seed potatoes for Northern Ireland are just not true. In Northern Ireland, seed potatoes cannot be sold in retail outlets, garden centres and so on. People like me who do a wee bit of gardening would not buy tons of them; they would buy a wee bag to plant for Christmas time or whatever. That is not available. Many plants are still not available, and many businesses now say that requirements under EU regulation to permit goods to go through the green lane are so onerous that they are simply not going to purchase any more.
Even big retailers say that. Tesco recently indicated, certainly to its own suppliers, that it would do three things—look to the Irish Republic; look to EU supply chains; and find ways to stock its shelves other than bringing goods from GB—because even with what it knows about the Windsor framework arrangements, it would be too onerous to bring goods into Northern Ireland. That is the consequence, and I do not think that we should make claims for these regulations that are not true.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is nice to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Nokes.
We in the SNP understand the purpose and aims of, and need for, yet another Brexit-related SI, this time relating to the Windsor framework to allow trade to take place between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The right hon. Member for East Antrim outlined many of the pitfalls that he has concerns about, and I am sure that he could have talked for considerably longer. However, it must be stated that once again a monumental amount of parliamentary time is being wasted as we go through the myriad pitfalls that must still be ironed out in the wake of Brexit. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, there are many still to come.
The reality is that we are seven years on from the Brexit vote and three years on from leaving the European Union, yet valuable parliamentary time is being wasted on such instruments as our constituents struggle to make ends meet. None of this comes close to what EU membership gave us.
Both the Westminster parties support Brexit. The Tories and the Labour party both support taking this self-defeating, self-damaging and insular road. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central spoke about many of the self-damaging pitfalls, so I really hope that he will take that forward to his own party leadership. Both parties seem determined to take the rest of us along with them—whether willingly or unwillingly, it does not seem to matter. The reality is that that is why Scottish independence is sitting so high in the polls, even if not for our own party. It is becoming clear that that is Scotland’s only way of escaping this Brexit madness and once again taking our place among our European friends as a normal, independent nation in the EU.
Mark Spencer
I am conscious that this is quite a specific debate about the enforcement of the regulations in Northern Ireland. It is tempting to wade into reliving the debate with the EU and the Brexit debate, and to get into topics that are much wider than the SI we are debating . I will resist temptation and try to stick to the SI.
I will try to address the specific questions asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. On his first question, about paragraph 7.4 in the explanatory memorandum, he was quite specific about wording that may appear in legalese to be somewhat confusing. I will try to clarify that as best I can. The first sentence refers to the effect of the EU regulation; the second refers to the situation after the SI steps in to ensure that GB standards can be applied in Northern Ireland to goods that move under the retail movement scheme—if that makes sense. I am more than happy to correspond with him afterwards to try to clarify the position.
The enforcement in Northern Ireland of the retail movement scheme is set out in the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulations 2023. The enforcement tools available include suspension or removal from the scheme. However, the relevant competent authorities will take a pragmatic approach to enforcement in the first instance as we work towards maximising compliance with similar domestic schemes. I hope that we will see the compliance and flexibility requested by the right hon. Gentleman.
I did not have time to write down all those trees that the right hon. Gentleman listed, but I will try to deal with his concern. The EU’s risk assessment process for the movement of so-called high-risk trees will also be expedited. Once approved, they will move from GB to Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland plant label. The 11 most commercially important GB-native and other industry-prioritised trees will be expedited so that they can move in time for the main 2023 planting season. That includes important GB-native trees such as English oak, sycamore, beech and the many others that he mentioned.
Hilary Benn
The Minister has made an extremely helpful point, but did he also say that the trees would be ready in time for the 2023 planting season?
Hilary Benn
We are in 2023, so can I take it that the expediting process for the assessment will happen in very, very short order?
Mark Spencer
We are very keen to expedite this as quickly as possible. Obviously, no one will be planting a tree at this moment in time and we will then move into winter. I will clarify in writing exactly when we hope to have this in place, but we are conscious that we do not want barriers. We want to allow free market movement of goods wherever possible.
I turn to my friend from Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for East Antrim. I understand his passion and his commitment to Northern Ireland, and we share many of his ambitions. Of course we want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, but in creating the Windsor framework, we are trying to address the challenges that were brought forward through the protocol. He criticises us for not consulting Northern Ireland and those who are affected, but of course there is huge pressure to try to solve this challenge. I know that he would be one of those voices—indeed he was—saying, “Let’s try and overcome the challenges that we face in the protocol.” These are the solutions that we have brought forward and we are trying to expedite those solutions as quickly as possible.
The Windsor framework achieves a long-standing UK Government objective of restoring the smooth flow in trade within the UK internal market. By pursuing a green lane for the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland, supporting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, it restores that smooth flow of trade within the internal market by removing some of those unnecessary burdens that disrupted east-west trade.
Sammy Wilson
When one thinks of smooth trade, one thinks of a lorry leaving here in London and going up to Scotland or Wales: it does not get stopped; it does not need to have labels on the goods; the final destination of the goods does not need to be known; it does not need a trusted trader arrangement for the people involved; and it does not need export papers. How can the Minister claim, when all that has to be in place for goods going to Northern Ireland that are purely for consumption in Northern Ireland, that that can be regarded as smooth trade? It would not be regarded as smooth trade if people had to do it in GB.
Mark Spencer
Again, I hesitate to wade in, because such matters are often way above my pay grade. However, we have to recognise that there are a number of challenges, not least of which are that we have to respect the Good Friday agreement and we have to respect the phytosanitary integrity of the island of Ireland. That is why we are devising these processes to try to expedite and ease that trade as much as possible while respecting all those other challenges that we face as a Government. We need the regulations so that we continue trade with Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
I appreciate the Minister’s point about safeguarding the Northern Ireland market and making sure that goods are compliant, including with UK law. However, he was the one who emphasised this point in his speech, and it is also emphasised in the explanatory memorandum, so could he explain to me what dangers the UK Government see in goods going from GB into Northern Ireland that could harm Northern Ireland consumers? Is there a volume of goods, and what sectors of the economy are those goods coming from, that require these kinds of checks because he and his explanatory memorandum have emphasised that this is one of the main reasons for the checks?
Mark Spencer
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but this is about the phytosanitary protection of the island of Ireland. Of course, we have obligations to try to mitigate the spread of any diseases in the United Kingdom. For example, we have measures in place with the Welsh Government, and we have operations that will restrict movement of plants across the United Kingdom to protect other parts of the UK from the spread of disease. It will be similar to moving an infected tree from London to Edinburgh, or from London to Shropshire. We need measures in place to ensure that we do not unwittingly spread disease around the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central asked a specific question about titanium dioxide. I will do my best to answer him, but I am more than happy to write to him if he does not feel my answer is adequate. The regulations mean that food items containing titanium dioxide, which is now banned in the EU, can lawfully be sent for sale to consumers in Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor framework, more 60 pieces of EU legislation have been disapplied on retail agrifood goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. GB standards will apply instead. That food additive remains authorised for use in Great Britain, so prepacked agrifood goods with this additive may be moved from GB to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme for supply to Northern Ireland consumers. That is consistent with a UK market.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful for that clarification—I understood that that was the case—but does it not illustrate a point that the right hon. Member for East Antrim made? I would have thought that he would welcome what is in the regulations because under the Northern Ireland protocol—this was why I raised the example—cake and ice cream containing titanium dioxide would not have been able to move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It would have been banned because EU regulations applied. Now, because GB standards apply, which are GB-UK standards, it can move. Does that not demonstrate how this position represents an improvement on the mess with which we grappled previously?
Mark Spencer
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: it protects the UK internal market, which we are very keen to do. I know that the right hon. Member for East Antrim is also keen to protect that. This is a good example of how things are working.
We have taken a lot of time this afternoon, so I would like to remind members of the Committee of the two critical components of the Windsor framework in the regulations. They will implement the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which will establish the new sustainable long-term solution for the movement of agrifood goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to the final consumer. Secondly, the Northern Ireland plant health label regime will significantly reduce costs for businesses moving plants to Northern Ireland, putting the process in line with the rest of the UK under the UK plant passport regime. Previously banned seed potatoes will once again be available in Northern Ireland, which is good news for our farms in Northern Ireland and for our Scottish farmers who export top-quality seed potatoes around the UK. This is a big step forward.
Let us not lose sight of the greater narrative. The statutory instrument is part of a wider framework that echoes our resolve to shape a brighter future for Northern Ireland and stands firmly on the pillars of economic prosperity and democratic values. I thank hon. Members for their engagement and questions.
Question put.
Draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023
(8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (George Freeman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023.
It is a great pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your direction and leadership this afternoon.
Consumers have a right to assume that if a product is for sale, it is safe and secure; too often, that is not always the case. Government must act to ensure that when UK consumers and business customers are purchasing consumer connectable products, they are not putting themselves at risk of cyber-attack, theft or even physical danger. Through the draft regulations, the Government are ensuring that protections are implemented for our commonly used items such as smart phones, smart watches and smart baby monitors, and for the UK citizens and businesses that use them.
Cyber-crime is thought to cost the UK billions of pounds—the total cost is estimated at about £27 billion a year—and it is on the rise, in particular cyber-crime that targets the internet of things. Vulnerable IOT products are a key attack vector for criminals, allowing them to compromise not only the device, but potentially the user’s network and the broader connected technology ecosystem. This draft statutory instrument is an essential step in fighting the dangers of such cyber-risks.
The draft regulations are made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The regulations will mandate the manufacturers of consumer connectable products made available to customers in the UK to meet minimum security requirements, unless excepted. The instrument completes the introduction of the UK’s world-first product security regime established by part 1 of the 2022 Act.
Subject to the approval of the Committee here gathered, the regime will afford UK citizens and businesses world-leading protections from the threats of cyber-crime. Research covering the first two months of this year shows that cyber-attacks targeting IOT devices have tripled since 2021, so the need for action has never been greater. The regime will also equip the Government with the tools to ensure the long-term security of a vital component of the broader UK technology ecosystem. That is especially important as frontier technologies, from artificial intelligence to quantum, allow technology to become more embedded in our economy and society than ever before.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I very much welcome the Government’s efforts to make consumer goods in the so-called internet of things safer and more secure and resilient against cyber-attack, but how confident is the Minister that the regime will work against a determined attack by a hostile state? Recently, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament produced a report saying that China targets UK industry and technology “prolifically and aggressively”. Will the draft instrument be effective in protecting us from that kind of attack?
George Freeman
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Perhaps I can come back to it in a bit more detail at the end of my comments, but I will make this point now: as I described, the measures will give a minimum level of security assurance to customers. This draft instrument is not the frontline, the arrowhead, of UK international counter-espionage; this is about ensuring that when people buy an iPhone or some such device, they can be confident that basic minimum standards have been met. It is not the basis on which we can all go to bed at night safe and secure, with the whole of UK critical national infrastructure secure. That work is being led by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Deputy Prime Minister.
I turn briefly to the basics of the draft instrument. First, on security requirements, the regulations mandate that manufacturers comply with the security arrangements that Parliament has set out in schedule 1. The security requirements are backed by security experts and have been consulted on extensively. In the view of the National Cyber Security Centre, which has been very involved, they will make the most fundamental difference to the vulnerability of consumer connectable products through the guidelines in the UK’s code of practice for consumer IOT security.
The first requirement bans businesses from selling to UK customers consumer smart products with universal defaults or easily guessable default passwords. Such passwords expose users to unacceptable risk of cyber-attack and allow malicious actors to compromise products at scale, equipping them with the computing power to launch significantly disruptive cyber-attacks.
Secondly, manufacturers will be required to publish, in an accessible, clear and transparent manner, the details of a point of contact for the reporting of security vulnerabilities. Despite previous Government interventions and the increasing threat of cyber-crime targeted at these products, less than a third of global manufacturers had any policy for how they can be made aware of vulnerabilities as of 2022.
The final security requirement 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. Consumers value security and consider it when purchasing products. Equipped with the vital information mandated by this requirement, UK customers and their intermediaries will be able to drive manufacturers to improve the security protections that they offer through market forces.
I will turn to the conditions for deemed compliance. Where the security outcomes that we are seeking to achieve are entirely or partially delivered through broader international standards, the regime allows manufacturers compliant with those standards to more readily demonstrate their compliance with our security requirements. That is the intent of regulation 4, and schedule 2 sets out conditions based on analogous provisions in two leading international standards. Where those conditions are met, a manufacturer is to be treated as having complied with a particular security requirement. Colleagues will be pleased to know that we have tried to take the opportunity to reduce process-driven bureaucracy and make it easy for proper compliance to be demonstrated in the interest of consumer protection.
The excepted products protocol in the instrument sets out a list of products that we have exempted from the scope of the product security regime. First, select product categories made available for supply in Northern Ireland are exempted. That exemption 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. Additionally, smart charge points, medical devices and smart metering devices are exempted to avoid double regulation and to ensure that those products are secured with the measures most appropriate to the particulars of their functions. To answer the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, we would not want to rely on these regulations alone for the safety of medical devices; they are covered, quite rightly, by far more extensive regulations through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I welcome the instrument in general terms, but I have a couple of quick questions. The Minister mentioned that Northern Ireland is outwith the scope of this regime because of its interaction with the European Union as it stands today. In effect, that treats Northern Ireland as not part of the United Kingdom for these purposes. Am I correct in thinking that?
Secondly, I completely agree with the cut-outs for medical devices, smart meters and so on. The Minister may need some inspiration on this, but are vehicles included in the minimum standards, given that lots of them now have autopilot systems and software updates to undertake week in, week out, and passcodes included in the software?
George Freeman
Those are two excellent questions. On Northern Ireland, basically the answer is no. This goes with the grain of the Windsor framework that the Prime Minister has negotiated, and it recognises that for the purposes of consumer standards, Northern Ireland is governed by the EU proposals in this space. I am delighted to say that the UK proposals are a little quicker, more agile and fleet of foot, and to some extent that might give Northern Ireland manufacturers an advantage. Perhaps I could come back to the point about vehicles; it is an important point to which the internet of things is very relevant.
The instrument also exempts laptops, desktop computers and tablets without a cellular connection from the regime scope. Engagement with industry highlighted that the manufacturers of those products would face completely unique challenges in complying with the regime. On many occasions where those products are in use, they are already subject to extensive cyber-protection standards. It is therefore not clear at this stage that including those products in the regime scope would be proportionate. However, as with so many of these things, I am happy and keen to keep a watching eye on that to ensure that we are keeping up with technology.
The administrative provisions in the SI, including those relating to statements of compliance, are uncontroversial. The regime will require that those documents are company products serving as an audit trail to enable compliance across the supply chain and to facilitate effective enforcement. We do not expect every single consumer to read all of that every time they buy a pair of speakers or any digital device, but the active intermediaries on behalf of consumers will be able to access it, and we foresee an active enforcement culture, not least online.
The product security regime, including these regulations, is 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, and that the Government have a duty to enforce that. The measures will cement the UK as a world leader in responsibly embracing the enormous potential of emerging technology. They are a first step in the development of a framework that will keep pace with technology. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
The Committee will be delighted to know that the debate can continue until half past seven.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, in this important debate. I thank the Minister for setting out the context for the regulations and their intended effect. I declare an interest: as the Minister is aware—I certainly talk about it enough—before I entered Parliament I worked in tech for 23 years, with the last six at Ofcom as head of telecoms technology, which included internet security.
My experiences at Ofcom and as a chartered electrical engineer gave me a strong awareness of the immense value of new technologies, such as IOT, but also of their potential harms. In 2011, I was the first Member of Parliament to mention the internet of things in this place, in a Westminster Hall debate I secured on machine-to-machine communications. Since then, the market for connected devices has grown exponentially; with smart phones in so many pockets, smart appliances in so many homes and wearables on so many wrists, there is a clear need for robust consumer protections. Let me be clear that the Labour party welcomes the introduction of the regulations, which will provide long overdue protection for users of consumer connectable products.
Although a step in the right direction, it has been a long while coming. According to Cisco, in 2010 there were 12.5 billion devices connected to the internet. Strategy Analytics found that in 2018 that had risen to 22 billion, with much of that growth driven by smart phones and IOT devices. It was only in 2016, when the Government published their national cyber-security strategy, that they set an ambition for the majority of online products and services coming into use to be secure by default by 2021.
Responding to a question I tabled in December 2016, I was told that cyber-security was a top priority for the Government. It was a top priority, however, that inspired almost no action—a little like online harms, where legislation is still to be passed. By the time 2020 came around, the Government had acknowledged the failure of their voluntary code of practice, and were instead proposing a new regulatory regime. As the Minister said, having legislated on the issue in 2022, we now stand to see regulations finally coming into effect in 2024.
It is clearly a case of better late than never. I understand the challenges involved in delivering a set of tech regulations on a complex and technical subject. It is right that there has been an extensive consultation on the subject, which no doubt created a wealth of information that required careful analysis. The reason I bring up the delay is that while the Government were asleep at the wheel, criminals were not. In 2016, hackers used domestic IOT devices, including televisions and baby monitors, to bring down major websites such as Twitter and Spotify. That style of attack poses huge risks to businesses and critical national infrastructure, such as our electricity grid.
Individual consumers have also been left vulnerable. Whether it is smart toys, which enable hackers to target our children, or smart alarm systems that leave people’s properties vulnerable to break-in without forced entry, these are massive and hugely damaging threats for individuals, families, businesses and our national security. In delaying action on the matter, the Government have effectively given hackers the head start.
Recent years have seen a surge in the popularity of smart devices in the home, such as smart speakers and doorbells. In 2016, Ofcom estimated that there were 13.3 million IOT connections in the UK, including 5.7 million categorised as consumer electronics. It is estimated that by 2024, that figure will have increased to 40 million. Globally, we expect that there were 14 billion connections in 2022.
There was an opportunity for the UK to get a consumer protection regime in place ahead of this recent acceleration in the uptake of smart devices. Doing so could have meant that millions of devices being bought by British consumers in the intervening period were sold securely, and it could have given a boost to our innovative businesses in that area by giving clarity of regulation. Instead, consumers and businesses have been left relatively exposed to risks. I ask the Minister, could the Government have delivered this regime more quickly?
Acting faster would have carried significant upsides for British businesses, as I have said, in adapting to the new requirements. These regulations translate the three most critical measures from the voluntary code of practice into the statute book, and, as I have said, we welcome them. However, given that mandating these recommendations seems to have remained the Government’s intention from 2020 onwards, it is more confusing as to why that was not legislated for in primary legislation, as Labour called for during the debates on the Bill in 2022. I fear that in pursuit of maintaining the Bill’s flexibility, despite expert consensus on the importance of the requirements, the Government have kicked the can down the road on providing certainty, which our businesses need in order to drive the economic growth that we all hope to see.
As the impact assessment for the SI notes, the proposals will have significant consequences for thousands of businesses, including around 170 manufacturers and thousands of retailers and charities involved in the sale of these products. In many cases, the cost of compliance would have been hard to avoid, but businesses would have benefited from earlier clarity about the scope of the regulations. That is particularly true when non-compliant equipment will need to be disposed of.
Now that the scope of the regime is finally confirmed, businesses will need guidance to ensure that the benefits of the new requirements are felt by consumers and that the detrimental business impact is minimised. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the SI promises non-statutory guidance for industry. Will the Minister commit to a timeframe for delivering that guidance, or give businesses any sign about when that might become available? As we know, small businesses do not have chief technology officers, and they need the support and help of Government.
I would also like to query some of the inconsistencies that I see in the regulations. As the Minister said, computers, laptops and non-cellular tablets, except those designed for children under 14, have been exempted. The reason seems to be that the situation, particularly the supply chain, is complicated. Could he say a little more about that?
I would also like clarity on the relationship between these measures and cellular internet of things modules or SIMs , which I think is what the hon. Member for Windsor was referring to when he spoke about vehicles. SIMs power much of the consumer connected device landscape by enabling internet access, and are often embedded. China is currently attempting to corner the global market in SIMs, which could have immense national security implications. For example, when it comes to cars, they can transmit location, the route and even videos of the driver and passenger. Will the Minister say clearly whether this legislation is applicable to SIMs? If not, why not, and what protection is to be brought forward in that regard?
Further, while the Product Security and Tele-communications Infrastructure Act gave the Government the power to create requirements on manufacturers, importers and retailers, those seem unevenly applied by this SI. To give just one example, there is no requirement for distributers of these products to publicise the defined support period, but there is such a requirement for manufacturers to do so, even though it is the distributers who often provide the direct interface with the consumer. Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking that approach, and whether they are considering further regulations applicable to distributers?
There is also very little in the SI about enforcement, but the parent Act allows for recall notices, stop notices, penalty fines and forfeiture of products, and the impact assessment says that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be the enforcing agency and will need to buy devices to test. Will the Minister assure us that the office will have the resources it needs to do this, given the global and, as he said, complicated nature of the market for these products and the embedded nature of the connectivity modules?
I have the greatest respect for the Minister. He knows, and I am sure that he wishes it were otherwise, that his Government’s record on digital inclusion is not the best. There has been no digital inclusion target since 2014, and that has resulted in 10% of our population being excluded. Is he certain that consumers will be adequately protected by the three basic measures—as he himself referred to them—that the SI brings in? He says they will give a minimum level of security, but he also implies that they will keep our citizens safe from cyber-attacks. Does he really think that that is the case?
Regardless, we want to see consumers empowered to understand and assert their rights in this area. My final question to the Minister is whether, in addition to guidance for industry, the Government will issue guidance to consumers on digital inclusion and literacy. To conclude, we support the introduction of the regulations, which will establish much-needed protections for users of connected devices and address significant gaps in our national cyber-security. However, the Government must act fast to communicate the new requirements to businesses and consumers well in advance of commencement, and I hope the Minister will address my questions in his remarks. It is important that these regulations are a success, and I urge him to do all he can to ensure that that is the case in the build-up to April next year.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve on one of your Committees, Mr Hollobone. Usually, pieces of delegated legislation do not create a great deal of interest, but this is one that I am most excited about, as the Minister will be pleased to hear, because this is a topic that I have been discussing in various quarters for some years.
I am concerned about the internet of things—what is actually happening within the clever software and products? Frankly, they go beyond my full understanding and, I am sure, beyond that of many in the room. If I understand it correctly, the whole concept of the statutory instrument is for consumers to have some certainty that the products they are buying are safe as regards their data security and that they will not be hacked through cyber-activity.
The regulations will apply to a multitude of goods. Those goods are expanding exponentially, whether that is the clever fridge that—if one is lucky enough to buy one—says when more milk is needed, or the Ring door camera telling the owner by text message or some app on their telephone that someone is at the door. If I put my hand in the air—I might even be able to make it happen—Siri starts talking to me. What is happening there? What is Siri listening to, and what is Siri listening to that it should not be listening to? One hopes that software from a known, big global brand has more security, surety and safety associated with it, and I hope our trust in some of these bigger organisations, such as Apple, is duly found.
One need only look on Amazon these days—I am not pointing out Amazon for any great reason—to see that the number of internet of things products available is truly vast. I would not even like to go through the whole gamut of what is available. There are speakers, baby cameras and even lightbulbs—I purchased one not too long ago. Obviously, a variety of watches from big brands is available—or smaller brands from China, available at a fraction of the price of the bigger brands but seemingly to the user doing all the same clever things. One wonders at times whether that cheapness is meant to encourage us to buy a product for good or ill.
I raised that very issue with National Trading Standards in the European Scrutiny Committee. Members might think, “Why on earth is the European Scrutiny Committee thinking about these things?” The hearing was on product standards related to Northern Ireland and border issues. Generally, National Trading Standards is interested in whether something will catch fire when we plug it in. Will it be physically safe and not burn the house down, scald someone or catch light? When I raised my concerns about the in-built software, National Trading Standards said it was a very interesting point, but had no great idea about what to do about it, so a few questions arise.
I note that in the SI there is a required statement of compliance by the manufacturer. The Minister referred to the National Cyber Security Centre. When a product arrives from China or elsewhere into the UK via our purchase from Amazon—not necessarily off the Amazon shelf but perhaps through one of the facilitating agents that it allows—I doubt that the National Cyber Security Centre or National Trading Standards entrench themselves in what it does behind the scenes. That is to say, in the clever software that drives it. Even if they did, it would be at a moment in time.
How often do we buy these products—even a phone? I note that my watch OS is on 9.6.2. It upgraded only last week it is already prodding me that it needs 9.6.3. One wonders, “Why couldn’t they get it right in the first place?” That happens regularly. It could be an innocuous product, such as the baby monitor that we can look at on a clever app on our phone. We merrily download those apps, but after a month or two they scurry off to the internet with all sorts of “agree here” boxes and 15 pages of terms and conditions. I am sure not one person in the room reads them before ticking the box and saying, “I accept all that—just give me the thing”. That item might have been safe when it crossed the border, if it was even tested to that point, which I doubt, but we have very little surety about what happens in the software upgrades. It just scurries off and does its software upgrades; we are all very familiar with that.
Last week, I entered the brave new world of lightbulbs. I had some lighting done and decided on an app that lets me put the lightbulb on from this room should I so wish. Amazing—really consumer friendly. Why did I decide on that app? The electrician who did some work in my home said, “I use this one and I rather like it. It has all the features and does all the bits that one wants it to do.” But do I know what is really happening? Do I know what data is being collected?
There was a report just last week that even something as basic as the Ring camera that tells us when someone is at the front door is scurrying off and sending out all sorts of data—our email address and whatever else we have provided to get it working. Sometimes there is an intrusiveness in the questions asked by some of these apps, and one wonders why they need that sort of information. Often, there is also the question, “Will you allow this app to track you across other websites?” One wonders whether this is just becoming a very grand data capture exercise. I have no concept of where the data goes—for whom, why or anything else. Have any Members in the room had an experience like this? I was discussing a colour of paint with my wife and, lo and behold, I picked up my iPad and Farrow and Ball and Dulux seemed to come up almost before I started writing in the search engine. One wonders what is going on in the background. I ask the Minister: are we likely to test the underlying software when it comes across the border, or simply to rely on self-certification and certificates of compliance?
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor raised the point about Northern Ireland, because I want us to have very safe and good legislation so that consumers can be sure about the products that they buy. Perhaps the regulations will represent a greater degree of consumer safety than we currently have or had under the old EU legislation. I think that that was the Minister’s intent—for the measures to be world leading and fleet of foot. I think those were the words that he used. But where does that leave us? Products that can enter the EU or are in the EU market—in the Republic of Ireland, for instance—have free access into Northern Ireland. They then have pretty much free access—because we are a United Kingdom, and we should not forget that—into GB. Could we have a situation in which the safety of goods sourced or provided for the consumer in GB, and potentially NI if they can tick the boxes required under single market rules, is degraded when that route from the EU, through the Republic, into NI and into GB, which is allowed, occurs? Or are we going to accept, as we seem to have done, that if CE markings are acceptable in the EU, they are acceptable here?
I will close—I am sure to the great pleasure of many in the room—by saying that this is an expansive debate about serious things, as we connect ourselves to the internet. One wonders: when we buy cheap, are we buying dangerous?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I do not wish to detain the Committee for long, but it strikes me that it would be useful to make a couple of observations, not least that I find myself in substantial agreement with the previous speaker about the importance of this issue.
Stella Creasy
There are so many stopped clocks around this building at this point in time. I am also now fascinated to see what will come up on my Facebook adverts as a result of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I suspect I will be getting many about lightbulbs, and Farrow and Ball paints—people can make their own jokes out of that.
I have a few simple questions for the Minister. So far, we have talked about products and the regulation of them, but we have not talked about consumers and consumer experiences. The elephant in the room is Brexit. After all, we were signed up to regulations that were shared across a massive consumer group of 550 million consumers, which meant that we had weight when negotiating with manufacturers. Now we are not, and we are bringing in our own regulations. Whatever one thinks of that decision, it means that there will potentially be some anomalies for consumers, unless our consumers never leave this country, whether to go to Northern Ireland or to mainland Europe. Can the Minister say a little about whether the draft regulations will have an impact on guarantees on consumer standards?
In particular, a lot of people will look at the exchange rate and try to get a better deal by buying goods overseas. What will the measures mean for consumers who might want to use any of these items on their holidays? People might take a baby monitor with them, or if their watches break they might walk into an Apple store in a foreign country and ask for help. What will our having a different set of regulations mean? Should we buy an item overseas to use it here? Could the companies tell us that we have voided our guarantees because we have bought a good in a different territory, where there are different regulations and therefore potentially different software components?
Has the Minister had any conversations with his colleagues about the requirements under the Consumer Rights Act 2015? The consumer protection regulations were written at a time when we all abided by a common framework of regulations, which meant that consumers did not need to worry about these things. Now we are going it alone, so when we go overseas or bring things here from overseas, there will inevitably be conflict and confusion. The Minister said a lot about the companies and the regulations; he has not said as much about the actual consumers—our constituents—who might suddenly find that “Computer says no” repeatedly, and not know to whom they can turn to do anything about it.
George Freeman
Tempted though I am to delay the Committee with long, exhaustive answers to all those points, which were well made, perhaps I could reassure colleagues on both sides of the House that we have thought about them. Some important points were made for the record, and I will try to keep my speech as short as possible. I thank you, Mr Hollobone, and the Committee: the feedback is incredibly helpful. I would value a chance to continue this discussion with those who have spoken today, many of whom have taken an interest in this subject for a long time.
Let me start with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, speaking for the Opposition. I congratulate her on returning to the position that I like to think of as my shadow. It has been a pleasure working with her. I also congratulate her on being the first to mention the internet of things in this House if indeed that is verifiable—I am sure it is, digitally as well as in many other ways. On the accusation that the Government were a bit slow to move in 2021, I will just gently point out that there were some other things going on, not least the pandemic, and that we are in fact, with this, quicker than the EU that we have just left. This is an example of us being more agile and more forward-leaning.
I will also make this point. Many of us have sat through and nodded through European legislation, knowing that there is really nothing we can do to change it. This is a good example of Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, raising important points and the Minister listening, to ensure that we get our own legislation right. I think that if we had done that a bit more, we would not have had the frustrations that we did.
On the point about the hackers having a head start, I think the truth is that technology is moving at such a pace that of course those who want to harness technology for ill generally tend to move much more quickly than the Government. That would be true were the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central in my position. What we are doing today is moving to shut down that head start. There are genuine questions about how quickly we move and how we get it right. I make the commitment to all colleagues that this is a start and we intend to have an annual process of listening to colleagues in the House, listening to the industry and asking whether we should not be going further faster to keep up with technology. The Opposition, I know, have the monopoly on hindsight, led as they are by the extremely able Leader of the Opposition, often referred to as Captain Hindsight. I will just point out that none of us quite foresaw the pace at which this would all move. I know that Government are often not the fastest mover, but we are, here, moving more quickly than partners in Europe.
George Freeman
I am on a roll. I have to say that no one cheered more loudly than when I heard the hon. Member talk about business certainty. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is a member of the Committee, I cannot help but point out that the biggest business certainty was making sure that he never became Chancellor, with his agenda of radical socialism and neo-communism. I notice—for the record—that he is no longer in his place, which is probably a good thing for business certainty.
Let me turn to the points that were raised. Perhaps, with your permission, Mr Hollobone, I can write to everyone with an update on our thinking about the timetable. We are looking to get the regulations in place as quickly as we possibly can. Perhaps I can come back to the point about the timetable, because it requires a detailed answer.
As I said, I will deal with the various points that were made. On the question of exemptions, this is a start. The Government are initially mandating security requirements that, in the opinion of the National Cyber Security Centre—this is not just my whim; it has been consulted on deeply—will have the most fundamental impact on the risks posed today by insecure consumer connectable products. We are confident that the requirements are robustly evidenced, are proportionate and are appropriate to mandate in law at this time. That is not a step we take lightly. The real key is to change the culture and to create a culture in which distributors and all those involved in the supply chains know that they are required by law to do this; they have a responsibility to consumers. However, should the Government deem it appropriate, the parent Act empowers Ministers to introduce further measures in the future, to keep pace with the changes in technology and the threat landscape. Those are powers that we intend to use, in consultation with the House.
Let me turn to the point about security updates, which a number of colleagues raised. The Government do not yet consider it appropriate to mandate and specify minimum security update periods for relevant connectable products, before the impact of the initial security requirements is known. Our 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 leaving citizens exposed to cyber-threats. There is no consensus yet in the industry. One of the things that we hope this measure will do is trigger a broader conversation, on the timescale that we need—each year—to talk to industry about what is happening and ensure that we are keeping up to date.
Let me pick up the point about digital exclusions. A number of people asked, through the consultation, why conventional computers and non-cellular tablets were exempt. We do not have evidence at the moment that including them in the scope of the regime would significantly reduce risk. There is a mature anti-virus-software market that empowers customers to secure their own devices and, alongside this, mainstream operating system vendors already include security features in their services. As ever, we legislate in a way that we think is timely, appropriate and proportionate, trying to deal not with every single risk that one might envisage, but with those that are faced by consumers today. The result is that those devices are not subject to the same level of risk as others.
Let me turn to the point about Northern Ireland made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and others. Customers across the UK will be able to benefit from the security protections that the regime aims to deliver. For selected product categories, honouring the UK’s international commitments has necessitated that the regime will apply differently in Northern Ireland. I stress that, in practice, the exemption applies to limited types of products, such as lifts, pyrotechnic articles and personal watercraft, which are regulated already under legislation contained in the Windsor framework.
We are required to ensure the smooth flow of trade under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The Prime Minister has also committed to ensuring smooth-flowing trade within the UK. The House should be reassured that the Government’s position on that is unchanged. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet made another, equally important point that we need to ensure that that does not inadvertently allow in a flow of products that would not be compliant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked about how we are dealing with automotive vehicles and the internet of things in cars. As we indicated in the April 2021 call for views on the regime, the Government intend to introduce separate regulation to cover the cyber-security of connectable automotive vehicles. To minimise an unnecessarily duplicative regulatory burden on industry, our position remains that cars should be exempted from these draft regulations, because we will be introducing a different framework. Developments in the legislative landscape have precluded the Government from including an exemption for connectable automotive vehicles in this, but we intend to bring forward that legislation as quickly as possible.
George Freeman
I will finish these points, if I may.
On enforcement, astute colleagues have observed that it falls under the Department for Business and Trade. The previous Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Minister for Small Business Consumers and Labour Markets, approved the recommendation for the OPSS to adopt the enforcement role for part 1 of the 2022 Act. The OPSS is part of the DBT and will therefore simply be enforcing the product security regime as the Secretary of State. It will begin enforcement functions as soon as the draft regulations come into force. To the question, I am reassured that the OPSS is properly resourced.
I have some final points. On the international aspect of the IOT security measures, the proportionality of implementing a given cyber-security measure for a product depends on a huge range of factors, from the product’s technical architecture to the settings in which it is ultimately deployed in. The Government are therefore mindful of the risk of imposing obligations on businesses that may in many cases be disproportionate. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Deputy Prime Minister, and the National Cyber Security Centre are keeping an active watch on the importance of updating that.
On SME information, I am absolutely delighted to undertake that we will provide tailored information and guidance to assist small and micro-businesses. As colleagues have observed, they do not always have the relevant bandwidth to keep abreast of technology.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet asked whether the self-certification and compliance mechanism—the duty placed on manufacturers—is sufficient to cover the risk. My answer to that would be that the draft statutory instrument is in our judgment the right place to start, but it is a start. We did not want to introduce heavy-handed legislation on day one, which would undermine business confidence and trigger huge fears in the industry. We wanted to start with something that everyone could at least acknowledge—our very important basic standards—then develop that, through consultation with the House, in a proportionate and agile way. I reinforce my comments on how that is a rather different approach from the EU one.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow made an important point about consumers. On the point about SMEs, we are actively engaging with consumer groups and we will ensure that any of their concerns are also reflected in our ongoing updates.
Stella Creasy
Will the Minister clarify a simple point? Would a consumer’s guarantee be voided were they to use one of the items overseas, or if they brought an item here and used it on their connection, because there are now two different regimes?
George Freeman
The hon. Member makes an important point. Perhaps I could clarify that in my written note to all Members to follow up. I think everyone would be interested in the enforceability of consumer rights.
Chi Onwurah
I am sure the Committee will be pleased to know that I will not take up the Minister’s provocation as to whether waiting 14 years to address security on the internet of things is a question of hindsight. Can the Minister clarify two points that I may have misunderstood? I heard him say that distributors did have a requirement on them to publicise the information about software upgrades. I may have misunderstood that because I thought it was only manufacturers who did.
More importantly, on cars, I think the Minister is saying that autonomous vehicles are exempted. I may have missed exactly where autonomous vehicles are exempted—it was not in the list of exemptions that I had. I am happy to take a clarification on that. Obviously, not all cars are autonomous vehicles, but is the assumption that any car that has an internet connection is in some way an autonomous vehicle?
George Freeman
All distributors already have a duty to ensure that the goods they are selling and distributing are legal. What we are doing is placing the onus on manufacturers. Distributors take their responsibility to consumers very seriously, and the vast majority will be very concerned and actively move to ensure they are not distributing illegal goods. It is not that there is not an onus on distributors; it is that we are implementing it via the mechanism.
On the point about cars, I did not want to mislead the House—I say this as the previous Minister for the future of transport—but we are in the process of putting together legislation on the digital vehicle and the internet of things in not just autonomous vehicles but smart and intelligent vehicles generally. It is to that process that we are deferring; this SI is not focused on that.
With that, I think I have addressed the points raised. I will happily write to the Committee, and if there are any points that I have not raised, Members should feel free to collar me between now and the picking up of my pen.
The Chair
We await the Minister’s letter with huge anticipation and great excitement.
Question put and agree to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023.
Ministerial Correction
(8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Justice
(8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Allin-Khan
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.
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.
[Official Report, 7 September 2023, Vol. 737, c. 562.]
Letter of correction from the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk):
Errors have been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan).
The correct information should have been:
Alex Chalk
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 2022, there has been an increase of more than 700 full-time equivalent band 3 to band 5 staff—wing officers up to custodial managers.
Bank branches
Barclays Kidsgrove
Written Statements
Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation Taskforce
(8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
This is a joint statement with the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)
We are pleased to inform the House that HM Government are today formally announcing the launch of a taskforce dedicated to tackling Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, known as SLAPPs, which target journalists.
SLAPPs seek to silence investigative journalists, writers and campaigners, often on unfounded defamation and privacy grounds which prevent the publication of information in the public interest. This abuse of the legal system is used by the wealthy to intimidate and financially exhaust opponents, threatening them with extreme costs for defending a claim and therefore undermining the reporting of important public interest issues. The Government recognise the need to protect defendants from abusive litigation while ensuring access to justice for properly conducted claims.
The new taskforce, which will have its inaugural meeting today, 11 September, will sit within the framework of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which was set up to ensure that journalists operating in the UK can do so free from violence or threats. It will bring together key stakeholders from across Government, civil society groups, representative bodies for journalists, and legal services regulators and stakeholders to develop a non-legislative response to SLAPPs targeting journalists. Its work will complement incoming legislation tackling economic-crime linked SLAPPs which cover up to 70% of such cases brought to UK courts. The changes, introduced in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, will allow SLAPPs to be thrown out by judges more quickly and place a cap on the costs for those targeted, making them less effective at strong-arming reporters into abandoning their stories. The Government have also committed to legislating to tackle SLAPPs beyond economic crime as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The establishment of the taskforce will be key in driving forward the Government’s agenda to make sure that appropriate protections exist for journalists who are tirelessly working to investigate and publish stories in the public interest, holding power to account and supporting our strong democratic tradition. Its first priority will be to establish an ambitious plan of activity to deliver its objectives over a fixed, 12-month period after which its future will be reassessed. It will be led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport along with the Ministry of Justice and its inauguration is a key milestone in our roadmap for bolstering the safety of journalists in the UK.
This is an important development in ensuring that journalists in the UK can continue to serve the vital democratic function of holding the powerful to account.
[HCWS1011]
Suicide Prevention Update
(8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Every suicide is a tragedy with devasting impacts on individuals, loved ones and communities. Today we are publishing a new National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England, which refreshes the national strategy for England that was published in 2012.
The strategy considers the latest evidence collected through our mental health call for evidence and discussions with experts, including those who have experienced the suicide of a loved one, academics, those who work within suicide prevention and the Government’s National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group.
I am incredibly grateful to everybody who took the time to provide feedback to ensure that the new strategy reflects the most pressing challenges and opportunities.
The result is a new cross-Government and cross-sector strategy for the next five years, with a core message that suicide prevention is everybody’s business. Over the next five years, we intend to reduce the suicide rate—with initial reductions in half this time. The strategy also sets out measures to improve support for people who have self-harmed and those bereaved by suicide.
Together, this strategy lays out over 100 concrete actions across national Government Departments, the NHS, local government, employers, the voluntary sector and many others. It includes new priority areas of action, such as improving online safety, addressing the links between suicide and factors such as gambling and domestic abuse, and combating different methods of suicide.
We have already provided funding to improve access to crisis support and support the voluntary sector to deliver suicide prevention activity including:
The £10 million from 2023 to 2025 to support non-profit organisations to meet the increased demand seen in recent years and support a range of diverse and innovative activity that can prevent suicides, including targeting groups of concern identified in this strategy.
Over £2.3 billion more a year for mental health services by March 2024 compared to 2018-19 , with £57 million specifically for suicide prevention and suicide bereavement services.
The £150 million capital investment made available to urgent and emergency care mental health pathways, including mental health ambulances, crisis cafes, children and young people’s places of safety and new mental health assessment spaces.
We will continue to review progress and update actions to prevent as many suicides as possible. I look forward to continuing to work with members of this House, the National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory group and colleagues across the NHS, local government and the voluntary sector to deliver on our ambition to reduce suicides.
I will deposit a copy of the strategy in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1012]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. I think we are expecting at least six votes this afternoon.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Follow-up Report (European Affairs Committee)
(8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jay of Ewelme
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Affairs Committee Report from the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Follow-up Report (2nd Report, HL Paper 57).
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, one of two Motions which invite the Grand Committee to take note of recent work by the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, which I have the privilege to chair. The first of the reports was published more than a year ago, at the time when the UK’s relationship with the European Union was not good. The second, and most recent, report was published in an altogether more positive climate, following the agreement in February this year on the Windsor Framework between the UK and the EU. Given the changed political landscape since the beginning of this year, it is this most recent report that will be the focus of my remarks this afternoon.
The Government replied to the report earlier this afternoon. I am very grateful for such a speedy response, but I am afraid that I have not yet been able to study it in all the detail that I am sure it deserves. I look forward to doing so after this debate, and it will no doubt inform the Minister’s reply to the debate later this afternoon.
The sub-committee’s membership includes a wide range of views both on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and on the protocol and the Windsor Framework. None the less, we once again succeeded in agreeing our report unanimously and by consensus. I believe this gives added weight to our conclusions and recommendations.
The Windsor Framework inquiry received many oral and written submissions, including from the British Government, business representatives, trade bodies, academic, legal and trade experts and representatives of community organisations. The sub-committee also visited Brussels in May and had a number of useful and productive discussions, including with Vice-President Šefčovič and his team. I congratulate Maroš Šefčovič on his new and expanded responsibilities, but I hope that he will not lose sight of his continuing responsibilities for relations with Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
On the basis of the wide-ranging evidence we received, we concluded that the Windsor Framework was an improvement on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland as originally negotiated. Indeed, I would say it is a marked improvement. Nevertheless, it is evident that problems remain. Business representatives and other stakeholders have welcomed the agreement on the Windsor Framework by the UK and the EU and the potential it provides to resolve problems sensibly in future. They particularly highlighted the benefits of the provisions of the Windsor Framework on movement from Great Britain to Northern Ireland via the green lane of retail goods, agri-food produce, including chilled meats, parcels, pets and human medicines. However, for some businesses we heard that the processes under the Windsor Framework would be more burdensome than under the protocol as it has operated with its grace periods and easements. While the green lane will benefit large retailers in particular, some retailers and some other sectors may have to use the red lane.
The report analyses evidence from witnesses on the overall impact of the Windsor Framework. Witnesses describe the technical and legal complexity of the Windsor Framework and the confusion that may arise from the difference in emphasis between the UK and the EU in their description of some of its provisions. We concluded that the UK and EU together really must publish a comprehensive summary of the Windsor Framework provisions, including the consolidated text of the original protocol as amended by the Windsor Framework. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government will indeed do so.
Chapter 3 of our report focuses on the movement of goods, including the red and green lanes and the movement of agri-food, with the attendant requirements for new labelling. We endorse the calls for more clarity about the new arrangements for movements of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Our report was in its final stages of preparation when the Government published additional guidance on 9 June. That guidance and the subsequent guidance of 28 July will be the subject of a follow-up committee evidence session next week.
Chapter 4 looks at human and veterinary medicines and the movement of pets. We noted the widespread welcome from the pharmaceutical industry for the Windsor Framework’s provisions on human medicines, which are seen as a sustainable solution to the problems with medicine supply to Northern Ireland, albeit with calls for the Government to intensify their engagement with stakeholders as the pharmaceutical industry prepares for the start of new measures on 1 January 2025.
While welcoming the extension of the grace periods for veterinary medicines until the end of 2025, the veterinary, farming and agri-food sectors all expressed serious concerns that a mutually agreed solution has yet to be reached. The report urges the Government to intensify their engagement with the EU and industry to identify a sustainable solution as a matter of urgency, to avoid a cliff edge in 2025. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what progress has been made since the report was published.
I do not want to go into detail on VAT, excise duties or state aid, important though they are. I do want to say, as chapter 6 of our report notes, that business representatives stressed to us that regulatory divergence, whether between Great Britain and Northern Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Ireland, remains their number one concern. The report urges the Government and the EU to undertake substantive assessments, for all planned legislation, of the impact of regulatory divergence on Northern Ireland.
The committee also renewed its call, made repeatedly since March 2022 with the support of Northern Ireland stakeholders, for the Government to create and maintain an up-to-date record of regulatory divergence and its impact on Northern Ireland. The committee simply fails to understand why this is apparently either too difficult or unnecessary, or both. Perhaps the Minister can set us straight there, too.
Chapter 7 examines the democratic deficit occurring under the protocol and the extent to which it was addressed by the Windsor Framework, not least by the new Stormont brake. The Stormont brake divides opinion: some regard it as a genuine and innovative attempt to give Northern Ireland politicians a voice on the application of EU law to Northern Ireland, while others argue that the stringent conditions for its use and the limited scope of its application mean that it will have negligible impact. Time will tell us how significant it will prove to be in practice.
Chapter 8 of our report examines the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union, concluding that there has been no substantive change.
Chapter 9 analyses the proposals in the Windsor Framework on enhanced dialogue and engagement, both between the UK and the EU and with Northern Ireland stakeholders. The proposals for enhanced dialogue between the UK and the EU and engagement with Northern Ireland stakeholders are of course welcome. However, the structure for bilateral dialogue between the UK and the EU is more developed than the engagement with Northern Ireland, where detail remains lacking. If such engagement is to give Northern Ireland stakeholders a really meaningful voice, as it must, the UK and the EU need to ensure that it is properly structured and resourced and has real substance.
Finally, as the continued suspension of the power-sharing institutions demonstrates, political tensions in Northern Ireland over the protocol and the Windsor Framework remain acute. In welcoming the Windsor Framework but focusing on the work still to be done, we acknowledge the importance and the difficulty of resolving these issues to the satisfaction of all communities in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and his sub-committee for this excellent and important report. It rightly highlights many of the uncertainties around the Windsor Framework and the lack of clarity about its operation. I too look forward to digesting the Government’s response when I have time.
I understand why the Prime Minister wanted to put an end to the tensions of recent years over Northern Ireland, but I am sorry to say that I regret the way in which it has been done. The Windsor Framework is said to be proof that good faith and a softer approach can pay dividends with the EU; I am afraid that I disagree. For me, it is proof that you never get a good result in a negotiation if the other side can tell that you just want a deal. As a result, I fear that its benefits have been oversold and the temporary reduction in friction over Northern Ireland has been bought only by conceding many of the points at issue. I will briefly explain why and highlight four problems.
First, I do not honestly think the Government have been totally clear about the nature of this agreement. The name may have changed, but we are still dealing with, essentially, the old protocol. The EU is still the goods and customs regulatory authority in Northern Ireland; its provisions are implemented by EU laws, not ours. In my view, the Stormont brake is a trivial and probably unusable add-on to something that was already in the protocol. The committee said and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, noted:
“There has been no substantive change to the role of the CJEU”.
It is not a new solution. Fundamentally, it is the old one and can be expected to generate the same problems.
Secondly, the workability of the framework’s limited new elements looks increasingly questionable. I wrote in February that the red and green lanes and the more relaxed rules on food standards and so on would probably improve the situation. I am no longer quite so sure. We are seeing operators setting out the practical difficulties with the green lane; on food standards, we seem to have agreed that people in Northern Ireland can consume GB-standard foods only if they are imported—they are not allowed to make them themselves. The Government claimed six months ago that there would be “no sense” of an Irish Sea border. We cannot really say that that is the case at the moment.
The third difficulty, which is crucial, is that the Government’s stance has changed. They have now committed to defending and supporting the framework. This is fundamental. The Johnson Government, of which I was part, always took the view—many criticised us for taking it—that the protocol was unsatisfactory and temporary. We always hoped that, ultimately, divergence by GB would produce the collapse of the protocol arrangements, whether consensually through a vote, a further negotiation or otherwise. We always wanted something better. Now, though, the Government are committed to the view that the Windsor Framework is better and should be defended. The consequence is that, as problems emerge—as they will—the Government must ally themselves with the EU, defend these new arrangements and impose them on a deeply divided Northern Ireland. They must actively support rules that destroy long-standing trade arrangements in this country and impose laws without consent in Northern Ireland. When problems emerge, as they do, for example over horticultural trade in Northern Ireland, they deny that they exist. I am afraid the Government will not find that comfortable. I fear the long-term consequences.
The final difficulty is that the Government’s commitment to the framework will shape their broader policy. That is why I cannot entirely share the view of those on my side of the argument who say, “Yes it’s imperfect, but it’s time to move on”. The framework creates a huge incentive to avoid diverging from the EU in relevant areas, because doing so will make its arrangements less and less workable, more vulnerable to EU interdiction and harder to defend as a success. Perhaps we have already seen the first consequences in the watered-down retained EU law Act.
The Windsor Framework exists. It seems that we will have to live with it for some years yet, but it is a sticking plaster and not a real solution to the underlying problems. If the Government had said something such as, “This deal softens the protocol but it does not remove it; it is the best we can get for now because we did not want to use the NI Protocol Bill and the EU knew it, but that cannot be the end of the story”, that would have been a fair statement of their position and much easier for people on my side of the argument to get behind. As it is, we are supposed to believe that the problems have been solved, but they have not. It leaves us where we started, with the British Government only partly sovereign over their territory. That is still a bitter pill to swallow, and in the long run I do not see how it can stand.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I record my thanks and grateful appreciation to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who has steered a committee of individuals from varying political perspectives to achieve consensus and agreement around two reports: last year’s follow-up report on the protocol and this year’s report on the Windsor Framework. That was no mean achievement, because we all came from different persuasions, some of us supporting the protocol and the Windsor Framework and others opposed to it. However, I want to move on from the reports; they are both very detailed, but we are now in the space where we have to move forward.
For me, the Windsor Framework is the only show in town, and over the next two days we will have business leaders from across the world descending on Belfast. In that context, and the need to, shall we say, underpin our political institutions—I hope they can be restored shortly—I would say that we need political and economic stability. Therefore, why would businesses in Northern Ireland not want to avail themselves of the economic, business and trade opportunities provided by the Windsor Framework when we can trade in the UK internal market and in the EU single market? Other areas would eat our hand to get that opportunity.
We need to top up those opportunities as well as to address the issues that were presented to us by businesspeople, who found the framework burdensome. In that respect, at that stage the Government had not provided the guidance, and only tomorrow will we deal with the four statutory instruments that will implement those guidance issues and information dealing with labelling. I say gently to the Minister that that is all in very short order when much of this stuff has to be implemented by October this year, some three weeks away.
However, in moving forward, we need to look at the Good Friday agreement. It deals with three sets of relationships, and the purpose of the Windsor Framework is to look at those three sets of relationships, obviously, and the accompanying document of the protocol in its entirety. There is, therefore, now an opportunity to look at those north-south opportunities. Can the Minister say what evidence and what work is being done for the EU-UK joint committee to keep under constant review the extent to which the implementation and application of Windsor and the protocol maintain the necessary conditions for north-south co-operation on the island of Ireland? Perhaps the Minister could provide me with an update on this particular area of any work the joint committee may be doing, and, if that has not been activated, provide an undertaking to do so when that happens.
With regard to the specialised committee, will it engage with the north-south implementation bodies? One of them is InterTradeIreland, which deals specifically with trade; another is Tourism Ireland, and there are several others. Will the Minister, working with colleagues, ensure that the specialised committee engages with north-south implementation bodies and the north-south joint secretariat on their experiences of the operation of the Windsor Framework for north-south co-operation? And will the joint committee signal how it intends to review the effect of the implementation and the application of the Windsor Framework on maintaining the necessary conditions for north-south co-operation?
Another area that needs to be examined is apportionment with HMRC. Before the Windsor Framework, there was no problem about apportioning the amount of trade for the EU and the Republic of Ireland and the amount that would stay in Northern Ireland. That information is not available in the guidance. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, admirably fulfilled his challenging role as chairman of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee in achieving a considerable level of agreement across the wide range of views in the committee about the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol and, in the second report, the Windsor Framework.
The first report found, wholly unsurprisingly, that businesses reliant on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland had been negatively affected. Contrarywise, businesses trading with Ireland and the rest of the EU found that the protocol had had a beneficial impact. The committee caveated its observations by noting that the overall impact of the protocol on the Northern Ireland economy was perhaps uncertain because of all the other things that have been happening: the Covid pandemic, labour shortages, rising costs from the war in Ukraine and so on.
Interestingly, the committee noted that those from whom it took evidence could reach opposite conclusions from the same information. That is characteristic of our problems. It is not surprising: those who are unionists but supported Brexit, which they did not all, will naturally look for something other than Brexit to be the main reason for their undoubted problems. Those who are nationalists, who were mostly opposed to Brexit, will see any development towards an all-Ireland economy as in their long-term political interest. Businesspeople, of course, will simply try to do the best that they can, whatever circumstances they work in.
The committee tried to avoid judgments on these issues of deep difference, but we need to address them if we are to take our thinking forward. Those who supported Brexit did not pay much attention to what were quite predictable consequences for Northern Ireland. They thought that it would be relatively straightforward and easy, but it has not been.
A number of realities need addressing and, given my professional background, noble Lords will not be surprised that the first reality I suggest is the psychological one. When a relationship breaks up because one side wishes to walk away from it and the other does not, there are inevitable emotional consequences. The one who is leaving minimises the consequences and says, “We can still be friends”, and the one who is being abandoned feels anxious and angry. The EU was never going to respond with equanimity to Brexit for these reasons, so even where there were some problems that could be mitigated in the early days, it was not going to happen immediately until people had begun to settle down to the reality of what had happened.
There were some problems that I would characterise as real-world problems. It is ironic that those who most fervently upheld the importance of taking back control of national borders were the very ones who dismissed the importance of the national border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was never a coherent position. If national borders are not important, there was no reason to leave the EU; if they were important enough to leave the EU, they were going to be important and problematic in respect of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, particularly given the historic, and even current, matter of dispute about that border.
Let me be clear: Brexit was an entirely legitimate ambition and, when it was voted on by the people and the people supported it, it had to be implemented. However, it has consequences. If I jump off a windowsill I will fall and there is no point in me saying how unfair it is that gravity will result in me being crippled. There are certain consequences to our actions, especially in relationships.
One of the other consequences was for our relationships with the EU and the United States. When Prime Minister Sunak took over the reins of government, he realised that the key challenges for his Government were resetting the relationships with the EU and the US. They had been damaged by Brexit and the UK cannot afford to be at odds with its most important trading and security partners. That is why the Windsor Framework was a dramatically successful initiative in resetting relationships with the EU and the United States. I think it extremely unlikely that the current UK Government or any successor Government will embark on an unstitching of those relationships and these arrangements.
There can be some window-dressing about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, but that position and the devolved settlement of Northern Ireland are of less consequence for Britain as a whole now than relationships with the EU and the United States. The emotional attachment, which was very strong when I came to this House more than a quarter of a century ago, does not feel the same now. For example, I was struck when John Simpson, a very distinguished journalist, on seeing what had happened with the Scottish nationalists, said that the “union is now safe”. I could not help but think to myself that he was not thinking very much about the union with Northern Ireland and that he is not the only one on this side of the water who has that perspective.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I am privileged to serve on the sub-committee that produced today’s report, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay. The committee has been well served by its staff. In particular, I pay tribute to Stuart Stoner, who as clerk of the committee played such a pivotal role in the production of this report and in supporting us as Members.
Some 89% of the 80,000 or so registered businesses in Northern Ireland have fewer than 10 employees; just over 2% have more than 50 employees and 42% of businesses have a turnover of less than £100,000. These factors impact on the ability of many businesses to respond quickly and strategically to changes required to IT systems, product modification and haulage and transportation change. Business across the UK faces significant challenge at this time of inflation and uncertainty, and business in Northern Ireland, including those seeking to do business with the rest of the UK, has additional challenges. Regulatory divergence is occurring and will continue to occur as the EU and the UK legislate. Business wants to respond to legislative change and to function effectively but, in the absence of any identifiable strategy within government departments to track and publicise occasions of regulatory divergence, that divergence, whether between Great Britain and Northern Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Ireland, remains the number one concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said.
Can the Minister inform the Committee today whether His Majesty’s Government have made an assessment of the practical impact of regulatory divergence on Northern Ireland and of the issues that the sub-committee has raised? Can the Minister tell us whether, following the establishment of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement, processes have been established that will meet the current information deficit and ensure that information is provided in a way that is coherent, industry-specific and the product of consultation, so that businesses are not hunting through the mass of guidance, policy papers, detail papers and so on to identify divergence? Much of the Government’s response seems to refer to framework structures that require to be underpinned by working groups and other modalities. Will the Minister assure us that such infrastructure exists and is functioning?
There is an underlying fear that Northern Ireland will find itself in a no man’s land between Great Britain and the EU. The processes for changing law in the myriad areas affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU are enormously complex. A considerable volume of legislation is produced each year in the UK, while the EU continues to legislate by means of directives, regulations and so on, on matters affecting the internal market as it operates in Northern Ireland. Business needs to know which laws are being introduced and which laws are being repealed, meaning that they are no longer obliged to operate in compliance with those laws.
The bigger question is how regulatory divergence impacts on businesses that wish to operate in both the EU single market and the UK. To what extent are separate manufacturing, labelling, tax, regulatory and enforcement regimes applicable to particular businesses and how can they best respond to maintain and expand their businesses so as to take advantage of the opportunities offered by Northern Ireland’s unique access to both the EU single market and the rest of the UK?
In the context of the EU and excise duties, stakeholders have welcomed the new enhanced co-ordination mechanism to review future legislation. Businesses have welcomed the potential for further flexibilities. The committee has urged the UK and the EU to ensure that the new body is sufficiently resourced. Can the Minister assure the Committee that this has been happening?
The sub-committee has repeatedly called on the Government to maintain a register of regulatory divergence, and we have done so again in this report. Businesses cannot be expected to derive essential commercial information on regulatory issues by way of Explanatory Notes or Memoranda on the potential impacts of proposed legislation. The expertise for tracking and identifying regulatory divergence surely exists within our government departments, which have extensive responsibilities in the areas of legislative drafting, regulation and enforcement. Can the Minister assure the Committee that that expertise will be directed to ensure that there is coherent, timely and accessible information for businesses across the UK?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate taking place so quickly after the production of our latest report on the Windsor Framework. Like others, I thank our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for the presentation today, and the way in which he chairs the committee on which I have the honour to serve. I thank Stuart Stoner and all the staff for their excellent work and the way in which they service the committee.
The committee has done extraordinarily useful work in shining a light on the complex details of the protocol/Windsor Framework because the two are really the same; there are a few tweaks here and there, but they are fundamentally the same mechanism. It has not been easy to shine that light, given the Government’s failure in many cases to be open or transparent on the issues, or to provide full—in some cases any—answers to straight questions. The detailed examination of legislation, from both the EU and His Majesty’s Government, is proving invaluable in holding the Government to account. It is proving very important to those who have a genuine interest in and concern for the facts—not spin or hype. The most recent report of the committee on the Windsor Framework is another example of this.
I would like to take a slightly broader view of where we are at with the framework and political process in Northern Ireland. There has been a lamentable failure, in practice and outcomes, to acknowledge that the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement, only works when the interests of unionists and nationalists are both respected, and when it is recognised that each of the three strands of the agreement must complement each other. It is now clear that the failure to respect that balance of interests and to uphold the various strands in a balanced and fair way has led us to the place we sadly, but inevitably, find ourselves in.
The protocol/Windsor Framework could only have come about through the adoption of a nationalist interpretation of the Belfast agreement. Things that would never be tolerated by republicans, nor would be imposed upon them, have been recklessly imposed upon unionists with little regard to the need to maintain balance in all the strands and to maintain the confidence of both communities. These are essential for the political process in Northern Ireland to work.
It took a long time to move people away from the original position of rigorous implementation of the deeply flawed protocol. The Alliance Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Irish Government and, indeed, some here in Westminster were all rigorous implementers, despite the damage it would entail to both the economy and political stability in Northern Ireland. The so-called grace periods and derogations by the British Government, which were so necessary, were condemned to high heaven by many, while they turned a blind eye to similar actions—or indeed threats, such as to stop vaccines—on the part of the EU.
The reality is that the protocol/Windsor Framework and the intended imposition of EU law on Northern Ireland without consent and the creation of an Irish Sea border, which deeply impacts upon Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, are things that were bound to undermine the institutions of the Belfast agreement, as amended by St Andrews. For many months, the Democratic Unionist Party worked with the Government of the day and the various Prime Ministers to bring about substantial change. It maintained its First Minister in Northern Ireland to allow that to happen for well over a year, until patience finally ran out with the continued delay and failure to deliver on commitments made by Prime Ministers.
The fact is that you cannot trash strand one—the internal affairs of Northern Ireland —and strand three—the east-west relationship—and expect no instability as a result. Work remains to be done to fulfil the pledges which have been made to the people of Northern Ireland. The DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson in setting out his seven tests was merely consolidating and reiterating promises made by British Prime Ministers to the people of Northern Ireland. They were not invented or made up by him. Incidentally, the seven tests were part of our manifesto in the most recent elections.
The basis on which the protocol was brought about was nationalist distaste for any checks on the border on the island of Ireland. Unionists never wanted or sought such but cannot accept that such should be imposed between us and the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that is a fair and balanced position, and it is achievable. It is something that the Government must address. They have not done so so far, and the Windsor Framework has not addressed that problem. Legislation which is currently being considered by the Government must address the entirety of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and remove impediments from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as well as reaffirming what we have for Northern Ireland to Great Britain. I trust the Government will addresses these fundamental issues and in doing so achieve political stability in Northern Ireland.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, as always, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, and his staff for these reports. I could give my whole five minutes over entirely to paeans and panegyrics, to odes and oratorios, to acclamations and encomiums, but I have done it before, as have the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, so shall we just take it all as read? It is a great achievement to have balanced the orange/green, remain/leave and left/right tensions three-dimensionally.
I agree with the thrust of the report’s conclusion: the Windsor Framework makes a few things a bit better and in a smaller number of areas it makes things slightly worse than the status quo plus the grace periods. The report is really an example of the importance of compromise, cool-headed temperance and the ability to talk things through in detail. I hope the Grand Committee will forgive me if I extend that logic, especially given the timing of the reconciliation Bill that we have just debated, and look at what is happening in the Province in terms of compromise.
One of the rather beautiful and underreported facts during the Troubles was the extent to which both communities consistently rejected violence. There was a Northern Ireland Life and Times survey in 1998, at the time of the Belfast agreement, and 70% of people who supported a united Ireland had no sympathy with physical force terrorism; only 8% supported it. Come forward one generation and 69% of people in that community now agree with Michelle O’Neill when she says that there was no alternative to IRA violence. Of course, this is partly just the passage of time, the sanitising effect of not being there with the funerals and the body parts and the physical destruction, but it also says something alarming about the readiness to compromise, to let the other side feel that they can live with something, on which all our deliberations, the amended Windsor Framework and the Belfast agreement itself rest.
Do not get me wrong: there has been immense progress in those 25 years—I do not think anyone will disagree with that—such as the Belfast dockyards and the Titanic quarter. The Corn Market, which I remember as a dingy and dangerous place, is now as beautiful a piece of street architecture as you will find anywhere in these islands. The sectarian murals have become tourist attractions. I hope it goes without saying that all of that is desirable and to be praised, but it all rests ultimately on a willingness to, if you like, elevate process over outcome, to accept that sometimes you are going to lose and that sometimes the other side is going to win and that that is not a threat to your whole identity. This point has been historically aimed at unionists, and not always without reason. I was amused by Senator Mitchell’s recollection at the 25th anniversary of David Trimble having said to him “You need to understand about my lot that they will travel hours out of their way to take an insult”, and we have all met politicians like that, but it applies equally to both sides.
Let me put it like this: if I were chiefly motivated by wanting a 32-county state in Ireland—whether I were on either side of the border—I would do things very differently. I would engage with British people in Northern Ireland as Brits rather than as misguided Irish protestants. I would have done a lot of things differently: I would not have left the Commonwealth; I would not have had a different foreign policy in the wars; I would not have made the Irish language a requirement. Those are water under the bridge, but going forward now is about finding a compromise that both sides can live with. We are in a world where we have a general retreat from liberal democracy, a general rise of populism and a “winner takes all” attitude even in countries that are old and established democracies—these are alarming tendencies. If there is one thing that we in this Chamber can do, perhaps it is to spread our irenic influence and to encourage people that, in the Windsor Framework and in everything else, we are never going to get 100% of what we want. That is the essence of any functioning open society.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for his exceptional chairing of a group of us that is, to say the least, politically diverse, if not a right handful. My thanks also to our brilliant clerk, Stuart Stoner, who has done a superhuman job since our inception, together with his colleagues.
The Windsor Framework is welcome as an effort by both the Government and the EU Commission to address very serious concerns around the protocol. However, as the report makes clear, a lot is still unresolved. Indeed, the sense of uncertainty risks being compounded by the fact that the Government remain open to doing the bidding of only one party when it comes to further adjustments and legislation with respect to Northern Ireland’s post-Brexit position.
How can the Secretary of State consider it appropriate to tell the leader of one party that he, the Minister,
“can bring forward legislation … that does exactly what he needs it to do for his party”,—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/23; col. 780]
namely the DUP? Yet after all that, the DUP does not trust the Government, and I do not blame it, because the Conservatives have betrayed the unionist cause that they purport to extol in a deal that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, negotiated but now condemns. When will the Government understand that finding stability in Northern Ireland is not, and never will be, about appeasing one party over others, but is rather about holding firm to the legal obligations and commitments that they have made—and, above all, that it is about being an honest broker? I say that as a former Secretary of State who brought the DUP and Sinn Féin to share power together from May 2007. That could have been achieved only by mutual respect between myself and the DUP—not necessarily agreeing with each other but building mutual trust.
That leads me back to our sub-committee’s report. There are three things worth underlining as a means of shoring up the stability and democratic governance of post-Brexit Northern Ireland, which all are agreed must be a priority. First, the Windsor deal is not merely a diplomatic “win” but a very significant framework for Northern Ireland’s future economic and trading relationships. The Government recognise that Northern Ireland enjoys potential advantages as a result of these arrangements, but those can be secured only by adequate resourcing from London, which is palpably not the case currently. It will be necessary to work in a new way with Northern Ireland officials, stakeholders, experts and—before long, let us hope—the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to make sure that the extensive capacity needed is there to make the Windsor Framework a success. It is a very complex animal.
Secondly, the report clearly sets out the need for information and clarity about the details of the Windsor Framework in practice. It is welcome that the Government are issuing more guidance on the details of the implementation of the schemes underpinning the green lanes, for example, but there is need for clarity and detail on a wider range of issues, from the so-called Stormont brake—which does not seem much of a brake at all—to the movement of parcels. The evidence gathered by the sub-committee is a helpful indication of not only what is needed now but what will be needed in the near future.
Finally, as our report concludes, it is vital that the UK and the EU ensure that they remain in close and productive dialogue, rebuilding the trust that is so vital but was squandered so recklessly by bellicose posturing under the Johnson and Truss regimes—trust both with each other and with Northern Ireland stakeholders and its citizens, and with the Irish Government, who are a guarantor for and signatory to the 1998 Good Friday agreement and the 2007 power-sharing self-government. Unless that trust is built with Dublin, nothing will work. It must also be built with Brussels. That is a huge challenge for this Government, which, sadly, they have so far failed to meet, except in respect of the Windsor Framework, which I welcome. I hope they rebuild that trust in future.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am privileged to sit on the sub-committee, under the wise chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and with the assistance of a brilliant team under Stuart Stoner, who have helped us so much.
The sub-committee has sought to cut through the hype and overselling of the Windsor Framework. The interrogation of witnesses from all stakeholders in Northern Ireland allowed us to outline in our report a realistic view of the effects to date and the perceived advantages and disadvantages that lie ahead.
I have previously expressed to the House my optimism for Northern Ireland’s future. I have said that, as a Welshman, I am envious of the unique position of Northern Ireland, with its access to both the EU market and the UK internal market. There ought to be a bright future, but I was impressed at a meeting we had in Brussels on 5 May with Brussels-based businessmen and academics, when we were told in no uncertain terms that, while the potential advantages of investment in Northern Ireland were well understood, the fear of political instability was causing investors to hesitate.
The lack of an Executive and a functioning Parliament is the outward manifestation of instability, but beneath the surface there lurks a fear of further violent unrest. Having listened recently to the debates on the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, I understand even more poignantly that the wounds of the past in Northern Ireland have not healed. It is ironic that all political parties and the whole of civil society in Northern Ireland came together to denounce the Bill with a unity of purpose ignored by the Westminster Government. Yet such cross-community assent is the bulwark of the Belfast agreement.
Since my first election address in Wales in 1964, I have been a firm advocate of devolution for every nation in the UK, for promoting a stable society. Heaven knows, the Welsh Parliament struggles to address the problems of an ageing population, ageing housing stock and exhausted extractive industries that once made the wages in the Rhondda the highest in the United Kingdom, but for all these difficulties, Wales does not lack stability and the Senedd is able to formulate and fund policies and plans to address them. By contrast, the political structures of the Northern Ireland settlement are unhappily on hold.
It is possible to implement certain aspects of the Windsor Framework, such as the green and red channels, the simplification of trade documents, labelling and so on without input from the Northern Ireland Assembly. The DUP, with its seven tests for any replacement of the original protocol, should be satisfied—at least in respect of their fifth, sixth and seventh tests. However, as our report demonstrates, the parts of the framework that mitigate the democratic deficit cannot be implemented while Stormont remains suspended. The changes to give a voice to Northern Ireland in the joint committee and the Joint Consultative Working Group cannot be carried forward in the absence of the Assembly. The Stormont brake cannot be triggered if the Members of the Assembly are not in place and, accordingly, changes to all modifications of EU law affecting Northern Ireland, and all new EU legislation, cannot be addressed.
In a debate following the publication of the framework, I criticised the Stormont brake as a mechanism that was so complicated as never to be used, but our subsequent visit to Brussels convinced me that, although it is highly unlikely that EU legislation would ever be negatived directly by the Stormont brake, nevertheless the process—from the presenting of a petition in the Assembly to its discussion at Stormont and subsequent proceedings in joint committees, followed by possible arbitration—would likely resolve all difficulties through negotiation, but with the voices of Northern Ireland loudly heard. That should satisfy the DUP’s fourth test of giving Northern Ireland people a say in the laws.
This leaves outstanding for that party its first test: the relevance of Article 6 of the Act of Union of 1800. Our committee did not address that issue because it has been determined already by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, whose jurisdiction was invoked by the DUP itself. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that
“The Acts of Union and Article VI remain in place but are modified to the extent and for the period during which the Protocol applies”.
There is no appeal possible from that.
Stability and peace, leading to prosperity, is the future within reach. It can be grasped by the people of Northern Ireland if the mechanisms that are there are used.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I commend the very impressive work of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and his committee and its staff.
I will make a distinction between the two reports before us. The follow-up report, published on 27 July 2022, is actually the more impressive of the two. Pages 58 to 62 on medicines are absolutely on the button and I think played a benign role in the eventual resolution of the question of medicines in the Windsor Framework. On the other hand, the new and more recent document on the Windsor Framework inevitably must deal with matters of unfathomable complexity, massive technical difficulty and a huge number of known unknowns. It is beyond the wit of any committee, no matter how wise, to produce an accurate crystal ball in this area.
I labour under the disadvantage of being the only person in this debate, so far, to have read the Government’s 32-page reply in the last hour. It is gritty and tough-minded. On page 18, for example, it calls for the committee to come to terms with certain factual errors in the initial report. It is a serious response, probably more so than is often the case in replies to the work of our committees, at least in my experience. However, I acknowledge that the technical complexity of these issues is so great that some degree of weakness, compared with the second follow-up report, was almost inevitable.
There is important evidence from the Irish ambassador in the follow-up report of July 2022. I broadly support the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds; when the Irish ambassador is questioned by the committee about the Good Friday agreement, it is very clear in the series of replies he gives—although everything he says about the importance of minority rights in the Good Friday agreement is perfectly correct—that the east-west dimension, strand three of the agreement, disappears and that, characteristically, throughout the last three years and until very recently, if at all, Dublin has defined the east-west relationship as Dublin to London. It does not include Belfast and Northern Ireland. Its model for harmonious relationships was clearly totally incompatible with, for example, what Dublin put its name to in the withdrawal agreement launched by the May Government, which did not mention any role at all for the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that the agreement he produced, which is unpopular in many areas, makes a fundamental democratic transformation in returning the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Subsequently, the Windsor Framework was an attempt to deepen that relationship.
I mention the Irish Government because of another point that was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan: the tone of Irish nationalism at the moment, with the widespread singing of “Ooh ah up the Ra”. This is as important as any deliberation on the role of European law in making it difficult to get a return of Stormont. There are two problems. One is a certain glibness of tone by the Irish state itself, but the other is the popular culture, which is making it very difficult indeed. I am grateful to two people who were very important in 1998, Bertie Ahern and Rory Montgomery, a very important official on the Irish side, who have stood out against this crass, vulgar popular culture, which is more important than many of the technical difficulties in and around this report.
I absolutely accept that it is possible to accept the Government’s document completely, and even to say that the seven tests are completely met, and still not like the options for unionism on the grounds that European law continues to operate in Northern Ireland. What I want to say on this is quite simple: the union has always been impure. Dramatic examples include not having conscription in the Second World War and the failure of the Labour Party to organise in Northern Ireland. These are dramatic indications of the impurity of the union. None the less, it continues to survive and, on the latest polling from the Northern Ireland Life and Times survey, continues to have a solid basis ahead of it, but it is very important to understand that it is always evolving and that there will never be a union in accordance with the ideals of high unionism. Impurities—a role for European law is probably one for the future—are nothing new in the history of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has done what he always does: he has managed to get a diverse group of members to agree something. He has a report that has probably not upset anyone at all. Of course, there is quite a lot of “On the one hand, and on the other” in it, but it is a really important, detailed analysis of some of the real problems with the Windsor Framework. I thank him and all of the committee for their work.
One thing struck me when I reread the report at the weekend: not a single person who gave evidence said that what the Prime Minister said when he launched the framework was absolutely correct. I looked up the Prime Minister’s speech when he came to Parliament. It was very clear that he was launching with great fanfare something that, when you look at it now, was not accurate. When you read it now, you wonder whether he really understood what he was saying. Two or three times, he talked about how wonderful it is that we are removing
“any sense of a border”
for goods destined for Northern Ireland. He reminded the House:
“We have achieved free-flowing trade, with a green lane for goods, no burdensome customs bureaucracy, no routine checks on trade, no paperwork whatsoever for Northern Irish goods moving into Great Britain”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/23; cols. 571-76.]
Even a slight reading of the report shows that is just not accurate. So many people said how wonderful the protocol was, how we all should rigorously implement it and how we were really ridiculous even opposing it, but a year on they have all become wonderful supporters of the Windsor Framework. I suggest that, in a year’s time, we will be back discussing how this cannot work and needs to be radically changed, because the fundamentals have not been changed: Northern Ireland is being gradually moved away, drip by drip, from the rest of the United Kingdom.
I will raise three or four real-life examples on the ground in Northern Ireland, where I now live. There is a very large manufacturing company there. Three-quarters of its components come from Great Britain. Recently, the European Union withdrew the general system of preferences, so it now has to pay 4.2% duty on everything while its competitors in Great Britain do not. That is hardly a level playing field. That is a direct result of the Windsor Framework.
On horticulture, the Prime Minister said:
“The same quintessentially British products like trees, plants, and seed potatoes—will again be available in Northern Ireland’s garden centres”.
That is just not happening. Yes, there have been some changes, but the reality is that individuals who normally would have got their seeds and plants directly from a garden centre or a retailer in Great Britain are not getting them. Sometimes it is because the company has deliberately decided it cannot be bothered with the hassle, but that is not giving a level playing field for people in Northern Ireland.
On farming, and buying cattle from markets, I have a friend who came over just last week to buy some animals in a market. On the morning he was buying them, he was sent an email saying that the holding period has now gone up from 30 days to 45. Of course, that brings huge extra costs. They have to feed the animals, and store them for that time, and again, that is a direct result of the Windsor Framework. Cattle now come over to Northern Ireland with an ear tag; as I am sure noble Lords know, each calf gets a tag in each ear, plus the farm’s herd number, and once the cattle get from the mainland to Northern Ireland, the two tags which were in their ears have to be cut out and replaced with the next available number with the herd number on it. That is just another example of the extra bureaucracy that is affecting farmers, and of course we do not have any real clarity about veterinary medicine, where there is a real worry.
There is no mention of duty free in the report, which is disappointing, yet the Prime Minister said in his wonderful speech:
“When I was Chancellor, it frustrated me that when I cut VAT on solar panels … those tax cuts did not apply in Northern Ireland … That means zero rates of VAT”, —[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/23; col. 572.]
and added that the Government would now ensure that all excise duties are the same. They are not. I fly from Belfast to Faro or from Belfast to the EU, I do not get duty free, and the answer I get back over and over again is just a nonsense. No one is honest. The headline today in an article by Owen Polley in the News Letter, is “London Still Not Honest About Windsor Framework Debacle”. That is the reality.
Finally, what really made me angry is that just this week, someone travelling from Cairnryan to Larne on a boat—an ordinary person—gets an email, which includes at the bottom, under “Check-in times for the Cairnryan-Larne route”:
“Please allow plenty of time for border checks, which take place before check-in”.
With the Windsor Framework, individuals are now very affected.
I will simply say that people in Northern Ireland are confused, frustrated and angry, but, most of all, they are very sad that their Government seem to be neglecting them.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I wish to share in the tributes to the chair, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and of course to the outstanding work of the committee staff, which has been attested to today and which has been the subject of so much proper and correct unanimity today.
In 2021, our committee found that the dispute over the implementation of the protocol had
“contributed to a serious deterioration in relations between London, Belfast, Dublin and Brussels”
and “a breakdown in trust”. It concluded that urgent steps were required to correct this. That was the starting point for our last two reports, which we are debating today. Our July 2022 report argued that the key to resolving the problem with the protocol was, not surprisingly, a reset in UK/EU relations. The report stated:
“Our witnesses identified four core interlinking principles that are needed to underpin this reset: prioritising Northern Ireland’s interests, constructive engagement, trust, and a renewed commitment to relationship-building”.
The Windsor Framework is based on these principles.
In the UK/EU political declaration accompanying that Windsor Framework, the two parties stated that:
“This new way forward demonstrates the joint determination of the European Commission and the Government of the United Kingdom to constructively work together to address the real issues affecting everyday life in Northern Ireland. Both express their intent to use all available mechanisms in the existing framework and arrangements announced in Windsor today to address and jointly resolve any relevant future issues that may emerge”.
It goes on to say that:
“The new way forward on the Windsor Framework marks a turning point in how both the United Kingdom and the European Union will work together collaboratively and constructively”.
It is this commitment to work together constructively and to use all available means to resolve problems that now offers the best chance of bridging the gap between what is necessary and what is sufficient in providing the answers to the complexity of securing GB to NI trade whilst protecting the EU single market.
Although the Windsor Framework was on the upside of expectations, critics point to many continuing problems, uncertainties with implementation and remaining issues, such as veterinary medicines, which all need resolution. Our witnesses expressed the hope that there will be flexibility to ensure that supply chains are able to operate in the green lane as planned and that any technical barriers that emerge as implementation proceeds will be addressed, to ensure that the aims of the Windsor Framework are delivered. The best hope for these issues to be addressed is through the UK-EU commitment to resolving practical problems and to prioritising Northern Ireland’s interests. Those hopes will only be realised if the EU plays its role as a facilitator of arrangements, not just an enforcer, and stays conscious of the fact that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement seeks to balance the interests and aspirations of both nationalists and unionists and to avoid the alienation of either community.
Our first report further pointed out that the protocol that emerged in 2018 and 2019 was not an inevitable result of Brexit but of the conscious political decisions taken during negotiations by both the EU and the UK on what form those arrangements should take. This analysis therefore contradicts the arguments of nationalists to this committee. The protocol’s basic structure was put in place by December 2017’s EU-UK joint report. We have been trying to push back against this, with some success, but it still leaves in place arrangements that have been very painful for unionists.
It might be that we could have achieved more flexibility through the Windsor accord, but we now have an agreement that the UK Government are committed to in international law. The upholding of this is key to the improved UK-EU relationship we are now enjoying, with all the benefits that brings, such as the Horizon and Copernicus deals agreed last week, which also benefit Northern Ireland. There will be more of this to come.
Therefore, despite the political difficulties for unionists, it is my firm belief that unionists will achieve improvements in these arrangements only by working within the frameworks of consultation and governance that the Windsor Framework established to resolve these problems. This, after all, represents one of the key gains of the Windsor Framework. It is through such engagement that unionists can effectively hold both the EU and the UK Government to account, both in fulfilling their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland and their joint commitment to work together constructively, along with representatives of Northern Ireland on all sides, to solve the practical problems that will arise in future and those we have identified in our latest report.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for using every bit of his diplomatic skills on the last two reports we have worked on together. It has been a great pleasure to work with Stuart Stoner and his team, who have given us great advice and attention to detail at every moment. Every question was answered. I really appreciate all their advice.
Going forward, I am so pleased that President Biden appointed Senator Kennedy to lead the team to bring more employment and work to Northern Ireland, both from America and from Ireland itself, from the United Kingdom and from other parts of Europe. I am hopeful about the meetings over the next few days and have been privileged to know some of the company leaders and Senator Kennedy. I know that, if anyone can do this, he will be able to, and he will stick with it until they can get to some resolution. Although, there will not be a resolution—it will just be bringing in more people, because they know that there is a great workforce in Northern Ireland.
I thank the Government for their response, which I had a quick glance at after receiving it early this afternoon. I will look at it more closely ahead of our committee meeting on Wednesday. The committee report rightly underlines the importance of restoring the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. The restoration of these vital institutions is essential and increasingly urgent, not least in order to enable Northern Ireland to have a greater say over the operation of the Windsor Framework, upon which the committee has reported.
It is a scandal that Northern Ireland has been without a fully functioning Executive for more than 18 months. The Northern Ireland Assembly elections have not been implemented for well over a year since the Northern Ireland electorate spoke in clear terms. It is disgraceful that power-sharing remains suspended. The people of Northern Ireland must not be held hostage by the DUP. Enough is more than enough. The Windsor Framework is good for Northern Ireland, good for the United Kingdom and good for the European Union. It is not perfect but, as the committee has recognised, it is an improvement on the protocol.
No party should have a veto. The best has to be done in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The fact is that, as long as the partition of Ireland remains, the United Kingdom and the EU have a land frontier across the island of Ireland, and the United Kingdom is split between the mainland, which has the sea frontier with the EU, and Northern Ireland, which does not.
This is a mess. There is a contradiction between the preservation of the entire United Kingdom on the one hand and Brexit on the other, and we have to do our best to manage this. The Northern Ireland elections in May last year and the Windsor Framework since enabled this to be done in a way that does not threaten the Good Friday agreement and the Irish peace process. We must disapprove when, in the United States, the loser of democratic elections will not accept the result, and we should disapprove when the results of elections in parts of the UK are not accepted on all sides. There needs to be a transition to a new working Northern Ireland Assembly in accordance with the election outcome, and this needs to be done very soon. There needs to be a functioning Northern Ireland Executive. These are categorical imperatives. If the devolved institutions are not restored, devolution in its present form may have to be suspended. The present impasse is not acceptable, and it is time to end the drift. The basis for a working Assembly and Executive, and the solidarity, is here.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I also applaud the excellent work of the Northern Ireland sub-committee under its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay. Its report on the Windsor Framework summed up the situation. The Windsor Framework is the latest attempt to manage the implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland and, in my words rather than the committee’s, I would say that it is the best of a bad job. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, called it a “sticking plaster”, and I agree with him—but our aspirations for a final destination radically differ.
The fact is that we should not have started from here. One major reason to aspire to at least re-entry to the EU single market for the whole of the UK is to solve the problem of barriers between the different parts of our country. The problems come not from the protocol or the Windsor Framework but from Brexit. My noble friend Lord Alderdice referred to its predictable consequences, and the Financial Times journalist, Peter Foster, recently said that
“the original sin remains the prioritisation of a clean-break Brexit over the stability of the Union”.
That is a serious, but in my view justified, charge.
The proponents of Brexit, and particularly those who forced through a hard Brexit, which rejected staying in the EU single market and customs union, gave little if any thought to the effect on Northern Ireland, the Good Friday agreement or the relationship in these islands, which was shameful. If only those who advocated Brexit had given thought to the implications of creating not only economic problems but further political tensions in Northern Ireland after several decades of things seeming to settle down somewhat. The committee noted that the continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland remains politically contentious and—rightly, in my opinion—urges that, in view of these political tensions, the obligation on the UK and EU is for them both to be fully transparent with Northern Ireland stakeholders over the consequences of what they have agreed under the Windsor Framework. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, mentioned, the committee urged publication of a consolidated text of the protocol as amended by the Windsor Framework. I hope that the Government are doing that—I have not yet had the opportunity to read their response.
It is an uncomfortable fact that, as the report on the Windsor Framework notes, stakeholders argued that, for many businesses, the movement of goods is likely to be more burdensome than the protocol as it has operated to date with various grace periods and easements in place, and that there are concerns that the ability of retailers based in Great Britain to use the green lane to supply the Northern Ireland market could place Northern Ireland businesses, which still need to comply with EU rules for goods, at a competitive disadvantage in their own market.
Views differ on the Stormont brake. In the view of Professor Catherine Barnard, it is something of a nuclear option to be threatened but not used. Indeed, in her opinion, it will very rarely be used. Professor Fabbrini of Dublin City University said it is a
“tailor-made way for Northern Ireland to object to future internal market laws”.
Note that he did not say to “veto” them. He warned against unrealistic expectations. He added:
“the Stormont Brake creates huge pressure for the Northern Ireland Executive to be restored because the mechanism can only be applied if the First Minister and deputy First Minister are in place”.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford mentioned that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, stressed how the avoidance of divergence in regulation is the top priority for business, while the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said that he and Mr Johnson had hoped that divergence would break the protocol. I think I have quoted him accurately and apologise if I have not. I think that developments suggest that alignment might be winning the day, and I hope that that will be the case.
Can the Minister explain if and how the conditions for trade in halal and kosher meat have been eased and tell us whether the respective Muslim and Jewish religious authorities feel that they can now cater to the requirements of their communities in Northern Ireland? The problems with veterinary and agri-food products will be eased by an SPS agreement. The FT’s Peter Foster, to whom I have already referred, reminds us that in 2021 even the DUP, in the person of Edwin Poots, wanted such an SPS agreement.
Finally, can the Minister give an update on discussions with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on whether issues regarding the application of Article 2 of the protocol on human rights and equalities matters have been satisfactorily resolved?
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the committee for producing two extremely informative and thoughtful reports that do justice to the diversity of views and the complexity of the issues, including the legal issues on which I concentrate.
My observations are on the second report. The committee invited the Government to clarify the process by which they would decide whether the tests for the use of the so-called Stormont brake had been met. There is one aspect on which I think the Government should reflect. Article 13(3) of the protocol allows the EU to amend or replace EU law applicable in Northern Ireland without the consent of the UK. By contrast, new EU law cannot be imposed on Northern Ireland if the UK objects—that is the effect of Article 13(4). The Windsor Framework added Article 13(3a) to the text of the protocol. Read alongside the unilateral declaration appended by the United Kingdom, Article 13(3a) provides the international legal basis for the Stormont brake. One condition for the use of the Stormont brake in Article 13(3a) is that the amendment or replacement must significantly differ in content or scope from what proceeded it. The problem with this language is that it might appear to suggest that the EU’s unilateral legislative power to amend or replace existing EU law under Article 13(3) is broader than it needs to be. It is, of course, in the interest of the UK to defend a restrictive interpretation of Article 13(3). It is perfectly proper for the UK to do so as long as its interpretation is tenable.
It seems to me that one has to accept that an amendment or replacement would ordinarily introduce different content, but whether amendments or replacements that are significantly different in scope would be permissible under Article 13(3) is a different matter. So I hope that the Government will agree with me that in all their official pronouncements on the Stormont brake that it is necessary to maintain a consistent interpretation of the UK’s legal rights and obligations under the protocol as amended by the framework and, in particular as regards Article 13(3), to maintain an interpretation that states that those powers ought to be read quite narrowly.
In the little time available, there is only one further and more general comment that I would like to make. Table 1 of the report sets out a number of key dates in the implementation of the framework for the coming 12 to 24 months. The date by which the democratic consent vote under Article 18 is due to be held is 31 December 2024. There is another reason why that date is quite important. The Windsor Framework amendments to the text of the protocol, including Article 13(3a), to which I referred, were adopted with a decision of the joint committee, not with a formal new treaty.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, the Grand Committee now resumes its debate on the European Affairs Committee reports. Following the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, three noble Lords will speak in the gap: the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
I was explaining how the text of the treaty could be amended with a decision of the joint committee rather than a new treaty. The reason is Article 164(5)(d) of the withdrawal agreement, which empowered a joint committee to make amendments by decision to the text of the treaty, including the protocol,
“provided that such amendments are necessary to correct errors, to address omissions or other deficiencies, or to address situations unforeseen when this Agreement was signed, and provided that such decisions may not amend the essential elements of this Agreement”.
Using this pragmatic mechanism to achieve treaty change without going through the formal process of adopting a new treaty was a significant win for the Government in the Windsor Framework, but the mechanism it will expire on 31 December 2024—it can be used only until that date. Among the many windows of opportunity that have been discussed, this mechanism provides a further window of opportunity to consider changes to deal with problems arising from the implementation of the framework as they become apparent in the coming months. I hope that the Government and the joint committee will keep that possibility under consideration.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, thank all members of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for the many hours of work which have brought us not just the initial report but all the previous work too.
When reading the report, it struck me again how the announcement of the Windsor Framework was so badly mishandled. There was something seriously wrong in government communication when they sold the Windsor Framework in the way they did. How much better would it have been if the Prime Minister had said, as this report says, “I believe this is an improvement on the protocol, but significant issues remain”? My assessment is that, if that had been the announcement, Ulster people would have said, “Fair enough. At least progress has been made”, but instead we were told that it was the best deal ever thought of.
As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, Northern Ireland is a small-business economy, and that is not really dealt with under the Windsor Framework. The trusted trader scheme deals with large retailers, which is helpful, but it does not deal with small businesses. I agree with the noble Baroness’s point in relation to that and about the need for information, which is important. It did not have to be this way: the Alternative Arrangements Commission brought forward a range of ways in which all this could have been dealt with, but it was decided not to go down that road.
I also underscore what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said about what has been going on recently. Advertisements have been taken out in Scottish newspapers from horticulture companies saying that they cannot send goods to Northern Ireland. There was also the shocking announcement advising customers to book in early for the passenger ferries from Cairnryan to Northern Ireland so that they can deal with border controls.
To ease the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on why the Secretary of State was listening to just one party—of course, I am no longer a member of the Democratic Unionist Party—it was because the other parties all wanted the protocol rigorously implemented and could see no difficulty with it, despite the obvious problems. My noble friend Lord Dodds made that point. We were also told that no party should have a veto. I was kept out of office as First Minister for three years, not 18 months, by Sinn Féin, and I have very little recollection of many voices from this place pointing out that it was a denial of democracy, as it very much was, or dealing with constitutional issues.
I have used up all my time. I commend this report and wish the Government well in the investment conference. We have young, bright, skilled people in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the conference is very successful.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in commending the noble Lord and the committee for a thorough, fair and balanced report. Its conclusions do not surprise me. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, I served on the DUP panel examining the Windsor Framework and receiving a wide range of evidence from stakeholders, which is largely reflected in this report. Some highlighted that burdens had been eased and improvements made. I perfectly accept that, although as a unionist it sticks in the craw that, even when we see improvements, such as on family-to-family parcels or medicines, that is through the prism of what we are being granted, in Northern Ireland in particular and the UK in general, as effectively grace and favour from the European Union. We are told what we are permitted to do within the United Kingdom.
Leaving aside that major constitutional problem, the report strongly highlights a range of practical issues and concerns from businesses with real issues on the ground. They have highlighted a lack of clarity from government. In particular, the haulage industry is concerned that the Windsor Framework has made things worse than before. Sadly, the Government’s approach to this issue has too often been characterised by obfuscation, confusion, ambiguity and spin. Two key, telling themes of the report are that a number of recommendations seek clarity from the Government on what further steps need to happen and the somewhat divergent positions between what the UK Government and the EU say which creates a major problem.
I turn to what needs to happen for a way forward. In simple terms, we need to see the constitutional position of Northern Ireland restored and the effective removal of the sea border for Northern Ireland’s internal trade. That means strengthening the internal market to ensure that goods can flow well in both directions and addressing some of the very real concerns about the green lane, such that it is not prohibitive to small companies and does not become, as described by one witness, an express red lane. We also need to see a range of unresolved issues tackled, be they veterinary medicine or horticulture, and real democratic accountability. The Stormont brake falls well short of giving genuine say.
We need to see substance rather than spin. Had the Prime Minister delivered everything he said in February, we would probably not be that far off the mark, but, unfortunately, we have had platitudes rather than substance. We do not need a perishable product that looks very good and tastes brilliant on day one, is probably okay a week down the line, but is very quickly of no use. We need something durable and comprehensive. That is the real concern that needs to be addressed and met if we are to find a way forward.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I will make three brief points. The first follows on from the point made by many other noble Lords about the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and his industry, expertise and skill. I say that from first-hand knowledge, because the European Affairs Committee and its sister committee, the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol committee, had to be very closely co-ordinated throughout everything to ensure we were not tripping over each other. That took the form of a weekly meeting during pretty well the whole of the currency of these reports. I never left those meetings unimproved and without being amused. I pay tribute to the noble Lord.
The second point is to underline the issue of regulatory divergence and how it is proceeding apace. Another and different meeting that we regularly had between the committees was the sift meeting, which considered the EU documents being sent through to the committee family. We had to decide whether those documents would be dealt with by the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol committee or by the European Affairs Committee. This gave us a great look into what was going on. Regulatory divergence is proceeding apace. This issue will add a lot of long-term complexity to the relationship between the UK and the EU and will throw up many issues. It will need to continue to be watched.
The final issue is the merits of an SPS agreement. This has been considered by the European Union Committee and the European Affairs Committee several times. The committee has reported several times and unanimously said that there should be one. In its very carefully nuanced paragraph 129 of the report on the Windsor Framework, the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol committee asks the Government to come back to it on the merits of such an arrangement. Thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I have been able to look at the Government’s response at great speed this afternoon. It would appear that the Government have not responded to that paragraph at all. I would be very grateful if the Minister could give some indication as to whether there will be a response to it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I echo all the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the committee, not only on a very good piece of work and on bringing so many disparate voices together but on providing a very valuable service to the House in detail and—I say to the Minister—to the Government, if they are prepared to address what is in it in detail. That is what has been provided and what the Government need to do.
To go back to the beginning of Brexit, it has been mentioned that we were promised unfettered access between the markets of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and frictionless trade. That was a lie from the start; that was not possible once we had left the single market and the customs union. The people who said that knew it perfectly well. So it was inevitable that there would be a problem and it was equally inevitable that Northern Ireland would be the focus of that problem. Unfortunately, it became subsumed in the bigger debate about Brexit, and the details of what Northern Ireland needed got overlooked to some extent.
As has been said, we all know that there is a real political divide, but businesses operating in Northern Ireland simply want clarity and the minimum amount of red tape that they can get away with. If there is to be red tape, they want to know what it is and how—indeed, whether—they can deal with it. That is where we have to get to. We know that the Windsor agreement does not get them there, but at least it sets the framework to try to help to achieve that. That will be achieved only if relations between the UK and the EU, and to some extent the UK and Ireland, remain on the basis of constructive engagement and developing trust, and if the relationship between Northern Ireland and the other components is based on a genuine desire to try to meet, wherever possible, the needs—not the political needs, but the economic, social and practical needs—of the people of Northern Ireland. That seems to be where we need to get to, and this is a really helpful process.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, in his speech, said that you never get a good deal if they know you want one. My question to him is: how are you going to get a deal if they know you do not want one? Where does that take you? That was how he seemed to approach it—as well as threatening to breach international law and bring the whole reputation of the country into disrepute. The reality is that trade is a bargain, and a bargain is achieved by negotiation and agreement. Every trade agreement requires concessions and give and take. We had that when we were inside the EU; we decided to leave, but we want to continue to engage, and if we want to continue to engage we will have to negotiate and compromise. We can tease each other about who got a better or a worse deal, but we will know nevertheless that it is a compromise and a deal and it cannot be perfect.
This debate has served a useful purpose to provide that degree of focus. Every speech has had real merit. I absolutely accept from the DUP Members, for example, that they can focus on all kinds of details—everybody can—that are not perfect or right and could have and should have been done better. However, I would plead with them not to use that as an excuse not to try to secure progress. Everybody here is making the point about the need to re-establish the Assembly and the Executive. I absolutely accept the situation in the past—the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, made the point that Sinn Féin kept the Assembly out of action for three years—and I can recall that I criticised that in this Chamber, because I did not think that it was justified, any more than I think what the DUP is doing is justified. Democracy requires people who are elected to participate in the process—and, my God, the people of Northern Ireland need it more than they have ever needed it, if these issues are going to be addressed.
I have a simple plea to the DUP: how long are you going to leave the people of Northern Ireland abandoned at a most critical time, economically, socially and politically, without leadership or engagement or the recognition that they depend on you? Indeed, the British Government are not going to engage properly if there is no one to engage with. It is a passionate plea and genuinely sincere. It does not mean that I do not recognise the difficulties, but they must know that they are getting towards the end of the road with regard to how long this process can continue.
To conclude on what I think has been a very good debate, the argument has been made that we all supported the protocol, but it was an improvement on nothing. Many of us knew that it was critical and said that it should be changed, but the Windsor Framework took it forward. It has not resolved it all, but this committee has identified where it has and has not and where it can be improved. That is a very practical piece of work; it is to be welcomed and the committee is to be highly commended.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and his committee for this second excellent report—nine chapters and five appendices, with detailed evidence gathering, conclusions and questions for the Government. I, too, have not read the letter that the Government provided today, but the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, described it as “gritty”. That bodes well that it is answering some of the detailed questions raised. I think that the noble Baroness said that it corrected some of the points—but, no, she is shaking her head on that. Nevertheless, it is a gritty answer to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, which is a good thing. My noble friend Lord Hain described the committee as a “right handful”, and I noticed that nobody demurred from that assessment of the committee—but I suspect that that is a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, as well.
The report looked in turn at all the areas covered by the framework. In each case, it set out an overview of the UK’s and EU’s respective positions on how the framework’s arrangements will work, and the evidence that the committee received from business representatives, Northern Ireland experts and other stakeholders. Overall, the committee concluded that
“the Windsor Framework is an improvement on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland as originally negotiated”.
We in the Opposition agree wholeheartedly with this principal conclusion. Nevertheless, the committee goes on to say:
“Nevertheless, it is evident that the Windsor Framework does not resolve all the problems with the Protocol”.
For instance, while some witnesses highlighted the benefits of the new red and green lane arrangements, the committee heard that they would not be available to all businesses.
We hope that the red and green lane system will prove beneficial to eligible businesses and by extension to consumers, who will be able to buy products that were essentially banned under the unamended protocol. However, as the Library briefing note says, it does not cover all businesses and would require many businesses—SMEs in particular—to prepare for and implement yet another set of changes to how they operate on a day-to-day basis.
The committee heard concerns from witnesses about
“the technical and legal complexity of the Windsor Framework, and the multiple documents and legal texts that form part of it”.
Witnesses were also concerned about
“the lack of operational detail”
against
“the backdrop of tight deadlines for compliance”.
The committee said it would explore with stakeholders in the autumn whether the new guidance published by the Government from June 2023 onwards has answered these concerns. I had a brief chat with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, before this meeting, and I am pleased that the committee is continuing its work up until the general election.
The committee found that the solutions reached on VAT and excise were
“pragmatic compromises between the UK and EU positions”.
It believed the compromise on state aid
“gives rise to some uncertainty”.
While the pharmaceutical industry “strongly welcomed” the solution on human medicines, the committee said that an agreement on veterinary medicines
“remains elusive, and is urgently required”.
The committee will be aware that the Government have now agreed terms for the UK to return to the EU’s Horizon and Copernicus schemes, which the noble Lord, Lord Godson, referred to. Although these are not directly related to the protocol and Windsor Framework, which we are debating, this is an example of how the UK-EU relationship has changed for the better. In fact, we in the Opposition argued that returning to Horizon is the lowest hanging fruit post-Windsor, and yet it has still taken six to seven months for the Government to get it over the line. We continue to believe that the Brexit agreement can be improved. While we would not seek to renegotiate the protocol again, our talks with EU partners suggest that a more constructive approach would enable add-on deals that benefit both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The committee found that the new Stormont brake mechanism “divides opinion” between those who see it as an
“innovative attempt to give Northern Ireland politicians a voice over the application of EU law to Northern Ireland”
and those who believe it will have a “negligible impact” because of its “stringent conditions” and “limited scope”.
We are expecting five SIs to be debated in the coming weeks in order to implement various aspects of the Windsor Framework ahead of them going live. I would like to ask the Minister what engagement has been carried out with Northern Ireland colleagues, of all parties and none, prior to those SIs being drawn up and laid. The very presence of these SIs puts into sharp contrast the importance of getting Stormont back up and running, partly to facilitate potential use of the Stormont brake under the framework, but primarily to bring an end to the democratic deficit faced by Northern Ireland citizens.
In conclusion, in August this year, the Secretary of State Mr Heaton-Harris said that talks with the DUP were “half way there” to re-establishing an Executive and Assembly. There was further speculation in today’s Times about ongoing talks. I hope the Minister can say at least something about the intensity of those ongoing discussions and where they may lead.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join with all noble Lords in recognising the strength of the report and the great diplomacy skills of the noble Lord, Lord Jay. However, that does not surprise me from what I have been informed of the noble Lord as a senior diplomat both in the network and as a former Permanent Under-Secretary to what was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It should be no surprise to anyone in your Lordships’ Committee that he has brought all these different strands of thinking together in a very constructive report, to which the Government responded today. I was very keen to ensure that the response preceded our debate when I was advised that I was responding to this particular debate, as it is always good to get up to speed with what the Government have responded to in a timely fashion.
From the outset, I would like to say that this debate again, as the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Bruce, demonstrated, shows that everyone cares. This is not about different positions. Of course, that is important, but the bottom line is that when people take a particular position—I refer to my noble friends from the DUP in particular—they do it with passion and principle, because they care, and it matters.
It may be that I am being slightly starry-eyed about this in general, but when we represent the interests of our people across our united United Kingdom, while we have differing opinions, we do it with the intent that we want to get the best outcome. As someone who has seen the various discussions and debates—indeed, I served alongside my noble friend Lord Frost when he was leading on this negotiation—I know that no negotiation is easy. Every negotiation is a challenge. What we sought to do under the current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was to reach out to the European Union, as a number of noble Lords have said, to see how we can strengthen our relationship with the EU.
I was taken by the contributions of many noble Lords. The noble Lords, Lord Alderdice, Lord Bew, Lord Dodds, and others have over many years engaged in debates as has my noble friend Lady Foster—I thank her for her best wishes. I recognise the issue of trust and engagement, which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, will know as a former Northern Ireland Secretary that that trust is key. Of course, the United Kingdom is directly engaged with our EU partners, the Republic of Ireland and all parties in Northern Ireland on these issues. I am delighted that we are joined in the Moses Room by my noble friend Lord Caine, who, together with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has been leading on these discussions.
In answer to the question about continuing engagement, that is central to ensuring that the Windsor Framework moves forward positively for all, particularly for those within Northern Ireland. As my noble friends Lord Hannan and Lord Frost and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, recognise, we are now dealing with the Windsor Framework and we need to ensure that we put in all practical efforts to make it work. I am pleased to recall that the Government agreed the Windsor Framework with the EU in February 2023. This led to the second report that is the focus of today’s debate, which was so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jay.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, talked of the gritty government response. I was scribbling notes about some of the specifics—my first sheet is evidence of that. I will go over the debate with colleagues from the Cabinet Office and the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that some of the specific questions that were raised by, for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, are specifically addressed, as I will perhaps not be able to do that in the time that I have today.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about the publication of the consolidated Windsor Framework. I can confirm that the full set of framework legal texts has been online since the deal was announced. It is a series of instruments but they are collected into a single GOV.UK page. We do not plan to consolidate the text further.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about specific engagement in the run-up to the instruments that will be discussed and debated. I know that the Northern Ireland Office is doing just that. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, also asked about the engagement undertaken with the north-south bodies on the specifics of the framework and what evidence is being collated. I assure her that engagement is being undertaken by the specialist committee and the joint committee, and I am happy to confirm that the new joint UK/EU stakeholder arrangements have already begun operating in this respect, as the framework demonstrated. We expect a regular rhythm and an expanded set of participants, particularly through the specialised committee and the joint committee.
We should recall that the UK Government have long recognised that we need to take account of Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances and to protect all dimensions of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, underlined the seven tests. Without going into detail on each one, I assure him that they have directly been part and parcel of our engagement and discussions.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, noted, it became clear that the old protocol did not strike the right balance: Northern Ireland has experienced persistent social, political and economic difficulties arising from its impact. It disrupted the smooth flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland with unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. It also threatened Northern Ireland’s place in the UK market, with practical impacts on the availability of goods from Great Britain. Importantly—I remember debating this during the progress of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill—it contained a democratic deficit, with Northern Ireland’s elected representatives unable to have a proper say on the rules that apply there.
As successive Governments have made clear, the UK’s preference was to find a negotiated solution to these issues. Indeed, I know that anyone who negotiated with the EU did so in good faith to try to find and determine the right outcome and solution. I therefore welcome the committee’s recognition that the Windsor Framework has provided an agreed, consensual basis for progress in Northern Ireland. It is a set of joint UK-EU solutions to move past the difficulties that have arisen in operating the old protocol—more durable than grace periods or any other contingency measure.
If I may make a personal reflection, I sat in some of the early meetings with European Commissioner Šefčovič and the Foreign Secretary and, as I have often said at the Dispatch Box, the tone determined the substance. Anyone who has been involved in a negotiation will know how important it is not just to achieve the right substance but to strike the right tone in the engagement.
The Windsor Framework marked a new chapter in our positive, constructive relationship with the EU, as partners. Just last week, we announced a bespoke new agreement with the EU on Horizon Europe. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has been a strong advocate of that. It was good to have some really good news, waking up to Radio 4 hearing many people talking about the positives of what had been achieved in our discussions with our European partners.
The Windsor Framework also resolves the issues with the original protocol, by fundamentally amending its texts and provisions to restore the smooth flow of trade, uphold Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom and address the democratic deficit. Although I have heard very clearly the concerns of my noble friends in the DUP, in the Government’s view, the framework addresses the underlying issues that contributed to the social, political and economic instability in Northern Ireland as a result of the old protocol. It provides a fundamentally different basis for critical internal UK trade, seeking to streamline processes, lift unnecessary prohibitions—although I note the specific concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—and provide a durable, sustainable basis for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, raised the issue of VAT and excise. The Windsor Framework provides the UK Government with significant new powers to set VAT and excise rates and structures in Northern Ireland. These powers have already been used to remove EU limits on zero and reduced VAT rates in Northern Ireland. This allowed us to introduce VAT reliefs on the installation of energy-saving materials on 1 May. In August this year, comprehensive reforms to alcohol duty were introduced for all venues across the UK, including new standardised rates of excise duty. They were unequivocally incompatible with the old protocol.
The Windsor Framework also establishes the enhanced co-ordination mechanism for VAT and excise. This is jointly led by UK and EU experts and is working to secure additional flexibilities in this respect. The issues of resources and expertise were raised. The Government will ensure that this is suitably and appropriately addressed and resourced.
We have been working intensively since the deal was agreed to give effect to all the changes and processes, but I fully accept that this engagement needs to continue. Our debate today will be an important element in informing some of the Government’s thinking. However, to deliver the full range of benefits, we need to see a Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly up and running, so that they can play their part in overseeing these new arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Weir, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—indeed most, if not all, noble Lords—agree with the principle that the representatives of Northern Ireland need to be a part of this.
Many references were made to the Stormont brake. My personal view on this is simple: let us get the Executive up and running. If there are challenges which arise based on principle, we will see the effectiveness of the Stormont brake, if and when required, in its practice. Our priority now is to do exactly that and to get what the people of Northern Ireland want: a functioning Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, also raised the issue of a database on regulatory divergence. As to monitoring and managing divergence, government departments will of course continue to work together to log and analyse information, identify issues and, where necessary, raise those directly with our EU partners in the joint fora. We will continue to focus on that as part of our policy decision-making in government. We will also continue to explore how to contextualise divergence matters as they arise. We note the good work being done in this space by various think tanks as well.
On the framework, there have been challenges—again, they have repeated in this debate. However, the 2023 report asserts some conclusions that I must disagree with, which are—as was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and as the Government have outlined in our response—factually incorrect. Most importantly, the Government do not agree with the assessment that the framework is more burdensome or divisive than the grace period arrangements that preceded it. The previous set of grace periods and fixes were no more than temporary arrangements that were the subject of dispute, including in legal proceedings initiated by the EU. They relied wholly on the application of EU standards and did not cover all aspects of trade. There were, for example, no substantive easements for customs trade. Moreover, comparison, if attempted, does not stand up. The Government’s written response provides a detailed account of this but if there are further questions from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, or indeed from other noble Lords, we will of course be pleased to answer them specifically. However, I will give a few brief examples of how the previous arrangements pale in comparison to the framework’s green lane arrangements.
Previously, even under the grace periods, full international customs processes applied for all truckloads, even where goods were staying in Northern Ireland. The Windsor Framework replaces those processes with a system based on the sharing of ordinary commercial information. Previously, all food moving into Northern Ireland had to meet EU standards, which had already led to supermarkets withdrawing some products. The Windsor Framework means that UK food and drink public health standards apply to products moving in the green lane. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, the green lane also allows more trade to benefit than was the case under the grace periods. From 30 September 2023, the new UK internal market scheme will expand the range of businesses able to benefit from the new arrangements and will protect internal UK movements from burdensome customs processes. For example, and as identified in the report, the turnover threshold for businesses involved in commercial processing has quadrupled to £2 million. There are various other areas but, in the interests of the few other points that I would like to cover, I will cover the specifics of any outstanding questions in a letter to allow for a full response to be given.
As an aside, I note that the report rightly sets out the importance of the effective functioning of the UK’s internal market, which I know all noble Lords will value and which is imperative. However, the report also takes issue with the fact that retailers in Great Britain can access the green lane. In that respect, the Government make no apologies for the important benefits secured in the Windsor Framework, which allow for smoother trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Moreover, beyond the core green lane arrangements, the framework as a whole delivers a substantial improvement. Previously, all changes to EU rules on goods applied automatically in Northern Ireland, with no say at all for Stormont. The Windsor Framework provides the Stormont brake and, as I alluded to earlier, we feel that we now need the Assembly up and running to allow for that to be tested if necessary.
Previously, the European Medicines Agency had full control over all new UK cancer drugs and other innovative medicines in Northern Ireland. The Windsor Framework removes any role for that agency in this sphere and puts UK authorities in full control instead.
Previously, EU rules applied by the old protocol precluded UK-wide VAT changes. Under the framework, we have already introduced legislation to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK on, for instance, second-hand cars, energy-saving materials, such as solar panels, and alcohol duty.
In addition, previously, the Government were bound to collect “equivalent information” to an export declaration for every single movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The Windsor Framework removes that onerous burden and confirms the Government’s commitment to ensuring unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the whole UK market.
For these reasons and more, the Government are unequivocal in their view, as has been noted by several noble Lords in their contributions, that the framework is the right way forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raised some issues on tagging livestock, border checks and duty free. She is right to raise some of the practical questions in this respect. Again, in the interest of time, and with her permission, I will write to her and circulate that letter to all noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others raised veterinary medicines. The Windsor Framework agreement has safeguarded the supplies of such medicines from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to the end of 2025. During this extension to the grace period, there will be no changes to the existing requirements on the supply of such medicines to Northern Ireland, and businesses should continue operating as they have done to date. While the extension is welcome, the Government’s position remains clear: there needs to be a long-term and permanent solution which maintains the uninterrupted flow of such medicines into Northern Ireland from Great Britain on which so many people and businesses rely. I can share with noble Lords that the Government are currently engaging extensively with industry and welcome the potential solutions put forward by key stakeholders in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned the seven tests that have been set out. I assure him that we focus on these particularly. I know that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, in particular my noble friend Lord Caine, are very much focused on discussions and ensuring that there is the right deal for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, also raised important issues about specific aspects of the Stormont brake. I think he mentioned Article 13.3a. I will write to him on some of the technical issues that he raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about the insufficient public guidance on apportioning the amount of trade due to travel to the Republic of Ireland. I know that she has been in pursuit of this issue for a long time. I am reassured that colleagues in HMRC will respond to her in the near future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised a number of issues, including one on which I suppose I should declare an interest: the movement of halal and kosher meat. These goods are eligible to benefit from the new Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which scraps costly individual vet-signed certification. Basically, we will now have a single general certificate per consignment.
There are a number of other questions that, in the time I have, I have not been able to respond to, but I assure noble Lords that the Government’s focus is on effectively implementing this basic framework to ensure that Northern Ireland’s citizens and businesses can take full advantage of the benefits it offers. In a few short weeks, the first phase of the green lane arrangements will be switched on. Our new schemes will provide a greatly expanded range of Northern Ireland traders with access to the facilitations agreed under the framework. Burdens will be lifted and checks will be reduced. Of course, when this happens, practical points will surface that we will seek to address.
The Government will continue to engage with stakeholders directly and to produce further guidance to ensure that there is clarity on these improved arrangements and how they operate. In parallel, we will also make full use of the wider freedoms provided by the framework, some of which I have already listed, to support Northern Ireland stakeholders. We will continue to urge all Northern Ireland parties to restore the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. As noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, have said, in our view—it is a shared view—it is crucial that we have a functioning Executive at the earliest opportunity. The Government stand ready to engage with all parties in support of this.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for replying to the debate and to all those who took part. The debate has shown a wide and deeply held difference of views on the Windsor Framework, but I was also struck by the arguments for compromise, stability and substance. All three of those will be needed if we are to find a solution to current problems, which will be, as our report said, for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: The Windsor Framework (European Affairs Committee Report)
Lord Jay of Ewelme
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Affairs Committee Report from the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: The Windsor Framework (7th Report, HL Paper 237).
Citizens’ Rights (European Affairs Committee Report)
(8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Kinnoull
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Affairs Committee Citizens’ Rights (1st Report, Session 2021-22, HL Paper 46).
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name and will introduce two pieces of work by the European Affairs Committee. Between May and June 2021, the committee conducted an inquiry into the rights of around 6 million EU citizens resident in the UK and around 1.2 million UK citizens resident in various EU countries. We published our report on 23 July 2021 and the Government responded on 19 November. Scheduling pressures meant that, by late 2022, we had still not been able to hold a debate on it. The committee therefore decided to undertake an updating process and contacted all the original witnesses to ask their views. They all responded and, in May 2023, the committee held an additional oral evidence session. It then sent a lengthy follow-up letter to the Government on 25 May 2023 and the Government responded on 2 August.
I pay warm tribute to the staff of the original report—Simon Pook, Dominic Walsh, Tim Mitchell, Sam Lomas and Louise Shewey—as well as to those on the more recent letter, Jarek Wisniewski, Jack Sheldon, Tabitha Brown and Elyssa Shea, with Tim Mitchell and Louise Shewey reprising their original roles. The skill and dedication of all concerned has produced two compelling documents.
At a high level, our July 2021 report applauded the Home Office’s achievement in processing more than 5.4 million settlement scheme applications of the 6 million received by 30 June 2021, the initial deadline for receipt. The report also praised the scheme’s principle of looking for reasons to grant new residence status for EU citizens rather than to refuse it. However, the report detailed various issues still to be resolved in both the settlement scheme and the systems operated by EU member states. Our update work looked at these areas again.
As of 30 June 2023, the settlement scheme had received 7.4 million applications. Thus, 1.4 million applications had been received since the 2021 deadline, showing just how live an issue this remains. It is therefore imperative that matters relating to these rights continue to receive the closest attention, being integral to the overall relationship between the UK and the EU.
Coming to the UK settlement scheme first, I start with the process of moving from pre-settled to settled status. Our original report foresaw the challenges ahead for the millions needing to apply to transfer from pre-settled status to settled status to secure their rights permanently. The committee noted that,
“although the Home Office planned to send individual reminders, the effectiveness of these would rely on holders of pre-settled status keeping their contact details up to date”.
In December 2022, following a judicial review brought by the IMA, the High Court ruled that the design of the settlement scheme was unlawful, particularly with regard to the Government’s approach to those granted pre-settled status.
The committee wrote to the Government in January, and again in our long letter in May, for clarification on the steps being taken to implement the High Court’s decision. The Home Secretary’s response on 2 August noted that the Government are
“working to implement the December 2022 High Court judgment as quickly as possible and in such a way that it will continue to be easy for EU citizens to evidence their WA rights in practice”.
The Home Office had in fact published some further details regarding the settlement scheme on its website a couple of weeks earlier, on 17 July, which was not referred to in the letter of 2 August to the committee. These July details stated that it would take steps to convert automatically
“as many eligible pre-settled status holders as possible to settled status … without them needing to make an application”.
In response to all of this, the IMA said that
“while we broadly welcome the commitment from the Home Office that no-one will lose their pre-settled status for failing to make a second application, we remain concerned about the lack of detail about how the plans will work in practice”.
Thus nine months or so on, there is still a woeful lack of clarity affecting an estimated 2 million people about how the Government intend to implement the High Court judgment of December 2022. Does the Minister accept that? When will the Government provide the vital clarity about how the automatic conversion of pre-settled to settled status will operate in practice?
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
Another problem area concerns backlogs and delays in the application of the settlement scheme. Since the 30 June 2021 deadline, there has continued to be a steady flow of fresh applications to the scheme. We are concerned that a backlog has developed in processing these applications and issuing certificates of application. From published data and the Home Secretary’s response, we know that in the period December 2022 to June 2023 the number of applications not concluded fell from an aggregate of 180,000 to an aggregate of 150,000 or so. We also know that between March and June 2023 the monthly number of new applications averaged just over 50,000. Broadly speaking, that would imply a pipeline of three months or so, with difficult cases no doubt taking far longer. Given these figures, can the Minister say by when the Government expect to clear the backlog in processing these applications?
The problem of digital status also persists. The committee and its predecessors have repeatedly and consistently raised concerns regarding the digital-only character of the EU settlement scheme. In our 2021 report, we noted that the absence of a physical document created the risk that many EU citizens, including the elderly and those who are digitally challenged, may struggle to prove their rights. We recommended that the Government offer holders of settled or pre-settled status the additional option of requesting and paying for physical documents, which would complement rather than replace their existing digital status. The evidence that we have considered in our follow-up research suggests that our concerns about this aspect of the design of the EU settlement scheme were well founded.
The quality of the digital system has also become an issue, which I now come to: the database error debacle. In January 2023, it was revealed that the incorrect status had been displayed online for approximately 146,000 people for an extended period. For settlement scheme applicants whose applications to the scheme were refused between June 2021 and April 2022, the online database displayed their application as “pending” instead of “refused” until 18 January 2023.
In her response letter of 2 August, the Home Secretary explained that these individuals received an email or postal notification of the decision when it was made, but that this was not reflected in an applicant’s digital status, which is used by some government departments when making decisions about access to benefits and services. She says that this
“was not due to a database error”,
but rather reflected that
“the digital status system did not have the capability to reflect that an administrative review or appeal was pending”,
and that it was necessary to ensure that such individuals
“continued to have temporary protection of their rights”.
I repeat all this hard to understand justification into Hansard so that others can form a view as I have. Systems that do not have necessary capabilities are by definition not good. Will the Minister say when the Government became aware that the online database reflected incorrect statuses?
The 146,000 concerned all had conflicting government news from two sources and, for at least some, one of the sources was not digital but a letter. There is an inconsistency between the Government’s defence of the digital systems for proof of status and their argument that users should not have relied on the information displayed on the digital system when accessing benefits or healthcare. For those who received a letter, which the Government maintain they should have relied on, this inconsistency is even worse. Can the Minister say why, given that the Government acknowledge that this situation arose out of system design problems and that it went on unstemmed for so long, the Secretary of State’s full powers of discretion to waive benefit debts has not been used, including in respect of universal credit?
Our 2021 report identified a mixed picture of how the rights of UK citizens were being upheld in EU member states. The evidence that we received in the follow-up indicates that this assessment still holds true. Although residence schemes appear to be operating relatively smoothly in the majority of EU member states, we have been aware of significant problems in others.
In her response letter, the Home Secretary informed the committee about
“regular discussions with the Commission … to raise and resolve issues”.
I welcome the Government’s engagement with the Commission on these matters and urge them to continue to raise such issues as they arise, including in relation to processes for upgrading to permanent residence. The key point is that there remain plenty of individual cases to be resolved. We are, however, very concerned to hear that resources to support UK citizens in the EU on citizens’ rights issues have been scaled back substantially since we conducted our 2021 inquiry. Several stakeholders were critical of the Government’s decision to close the UK nationals support fund, which provided funding to non-governmental organisations in some EU member states to support residence applications from UK citizens. Here, a little money has gone a long way in the past. Will the Minister provide an update on the resources available to UK embassies in EU member states to support UK citizens facing citizens’ rights issues? What government funding is currently available to non-governmental bodies that support EU-based UK nationals on citizens’ rights issues?
I have spoken for a long time and touched on only some of the key issues from this important work. I very much look forward to the debate ahead. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on his opening speech and on his outstanding work as chair not only of the European Affairs Committee but of the EU Committee before that. I also thank the committee staff for their work drafting the 2021 report and assisting the committee in all its follow-up work, to which the noble Earl referred. We are also fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, has agreed to take on the role of chair of the committee; it is an important one, but it is onerous too.
What seems like a lifetime ago, pre-Brexit, I was a Minister in DExEU in 2017, where my portfolio included meeting UK citizens resident across the EU—for example, in Finland and Luxembourg. At that point, they felt cast aside, with no certainty about how a withdrawal agreement might affect them or when it might be agreed. They found themselves not knowing what their employment, health, residence or travel rights might be. The stress they felt was palpable. It is regrettable that so many of them still face some uncertainty about their status and access to services. Today, I will focus on the protection of their post-Brexit rights, some of which have been referred to by the noble Earl.
In the Home Secretary’s recent letter to the committee, she acknowledged that
“there is still much to do, and serious shortcomings remain in several Member States”,
particularly regarding
“the variable quality and availability of reasonable grounds guidance for late applications, and the uncertain status of UK nationals who are required to submit a second application”.
The Home Secretary stated that the Government intend to continue raising these matters at both bilateral and EU level. Like the noble Earl, I welcome that commitment. However, I note, for example, that the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights met for just two hours on 23 May and it now meets only twice a year.
Subsequently, the UK and EU issued a joint statement. The EU raised several significant issues about its citizens in this country, but I shall mention just some of the UK’s concerns, which were raised by the Government. The first was how UK nationals who do not make an application for permanent residence may demonstrate their declaratory rights of permanent residence when accessing benefits and services. Secondly, there is a lack of publicly available guidance on reasonable grounds for making a late application in some states. Thirdly, there are property rights problems in some states. Finally, there are reports that UK nationals with special statuses were unable to access rights guaranteed to them under the withdrawal agreement.
I welcome the Government’s engagement with the Commission on these matters, but I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could indicate what progress has been made since the last meeting of the specialised committee and what preparations have been made for the next meeting. What bilateral discussions, to which the Home Secretary referred in her letter, are scheduled?
The committee’s recent letter to the Home Secretary indeed expressed concern that resources to support our citizens in the EU on citizens’ rights had been cut—indeed, the UK nationals support fund had been closed. As the noble Earl reminded us, we asked the Government for information about the resources available for embassies and NGOs. In looking at the response of the Home Secretary, I noted that she specifically said that resources included the
“Justice and Home Affairs Network of attaches”.
I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could give details of that network to the Grand Committee. I googled repeatedly for information but came up empty-handed. That may just be me, but I would be grateful for elucidation. How many of our embassies across the EU have an attaché whose work is dedicated to supporting UK citizens resident there? How accessible are they, and can my noble friend give examples of progress the network has made in assisting our citizens?
I appreciate that these matters are complex, but it is time that substantial progress should be made on removing the final obstacles that still face our citizens resident in the EU.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Anelay, and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his excellent speech. I also want to say what a pleasure it was to serve under him on the EU Committee and the European Affairs Committee, which he chaired with distinction, good humour and balance for so long. However, I suppose that European affairs’ loss is the Cross-Benchers’ gain.
I was chair of the European Affairs Committee for six weeks. My tenure did not move markets in the way that someone else’s six-week tenure in charge in another place did. However, we managed to host witness sessions on developments regarding EU citizens’ rights since our July 2021 report, and sent the Home Secretary the 25 May letter that has been mentioned.
Brexit was always going to create difficulty and complexity for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, and many of the issues that have arisen have been addressed. However, far too many remain; some show no signs of improving after many years, and others are getting worse. In addition, as I will point out later, problems are still arising for UK citizens abroad and for EU citizens here in the UK as a result of new decisions that are being made, including some in the last few days, which I will talk about.
I want to touch on three legacy issues—the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, mentioned a couple of them. I will start with the backlog of cases. Estimates from the3million campaign group—I congratulate it on the excellent, persistent work it does on behalf of EU citizens in the UK—is that the backlog of applications for settled status will take three years to clear. Some 20,000 who applied before the original official deadline have been waiting over two years. This matters not simply for reasons of complexity and uncertainty. If your status is officially designated as “pending”, multiple rights are denied to you: you cannot replace your driving licence or get a new one, get a European health insurance card, apply for a national insurance number or sponsor family members, and multiple other problems arise if you want to prove your right to work or your ability to rent or to travel. Can the Minister please give us a sense of what is being done that has not already been done, say, a month ago to try to address this backlog?
With regard to the High Court’s decision of December 2022, I am afraid that the Government’s response is still inadequate. The court ruled that EU citizens can be required to make only one application for residence to secure their rights under the withdrawal agreement, so the Government’s requirement for a second application—from pre-settled to settled status—was contrary to that agreement. Furthermore, the court ruled that, once granted pre-settled status, EU citizens are automatically entitled to reside permanently here once they have lived continuously in the UK for five years.
As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, nine months on from the judgment, we are still waiting for the Government to implement the requirement to automatically convert pre-settled status holders to settled status once they are eligible. When will that court-required change be introduced? Some people—not myself—suspect that the Government are deliberately treading water on the implementation of the terms of this judgment in the hope that they may not have to make any further remedial measures or changes before the election. I hope that the Minister can disavow that motive when he responds.
Secondly, applicants’ digital status still indicates that the rights of those with pre-settled status will expire after five years, when that is simply not true under the law. When will this be changed?
Thirdly, the Home Secretary’s response to our letter expressed a determination to continue with the policy of encouraging pre-settled status holders to apply for settled status, but the court made it clear that no rights can hang on such an application. Can the Minister explain why this is still government policy?
Looking to the future, there is the looming issue of the new ETIAS—electronic travel information and authorisation system—to be introduced in 2024. The Home Secretary’s reply to our letter states that,
“those with an existing UK immigration status, such as pre-settled or settled status, will not be required to obtain an ETA”.
That is good news, but they will still need to prove to airline and rail carriers that they have the formal status that means they are not required to have an ETA. Where does that proof exist? The answer is: in the advance passenger information system, which is not planned to be introduced until summer 2024, after ETAs have already begun to be introduced. Can the Minister explain how this circle will be squared?
Lastly, I want to ask the Minister about an issue that arose just a few days ago from an administrative policy change. The Immigration Minister issued a Statement announcing
“the removal of the right of administrative review”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/23; col. 23WS.]
for settled-status refusals and cancellation decisions made after 5 October this year. I understand the logic of this, as it brings it into line with other kinds of immigration law appeal processes, but campaign groups have said that it will penalise more vulnerable EU citizens and increase the workload on immigration tribunals. Will the Minister please respond to that?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, much water has flowed under many bridges since the report we are debating today was published some two and a half years ago. Some developments in the treaty-based handling of citizens’ rights on both sides of the channel following Brexit are, frankly, worthy of respect—particularly the granting of settled and pre-settled status to several more millions of EU citizens in this country than was originally anticipated. I would add in my praiseworthy list the work of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Wood, who did the refresh of our report.
Other events are, I fear, a bit less praiseworthy and I will come to those shortly, but we must not lose sight of the basics of the affair: in June 2016, the referendum vote—I am not contesting the outcome’s legitimacy—deprived millions of citizens on both sides of the channel of their existing citizens’ rights, without their having any say in the matter. That was a shameful way of proceeding—all the more so when the governing party promised in its 2015 election manifesto to give the vote to all UK citizens resident abroad and then failed to do so in time for them to exercise that vote on an occasion of such importance to them as the 2016 referendum.
As my noble friend Lord Kinnoull mentioned, your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee has urged the Government again and again to rectify their scheme for granting settled and pre-settled status to provide the option to recipients of receiving a hard copy registering their status—the sort of thing we all had the option to receive under the Covid-19 vaccination scheme—but again and again the Government have refused to do that, most recently in the Home Secretary’s much-belated reply to the committee’s letter of May this year. They plead security concerns of a rather unconvincing and unsubstantiated kind. I really hope the Minister will indicate today a willingness to look again at this matter and to cease ignoring the considerable body of evidence that many elderly and insecure EU citizens have expressed troubling anxieties as a result of not having paper or plastic evidence of their status. To refuse this is sheer digital fundamentalism. Of course, our own citizens in the rest of Europe have no such problem because they all get identity cards.
Then there was the lamentable attempt by the Government to subject late applications for pre-selected status to an arbitrary and subjective ruling on their acceptability. This scheme was struck down in a case lodged by the IMA as illegal—incompatible with the provisions of the withdrawal agreement with the EU which we had entered into and ratified. It is good that the Government accepted that ruling and did not appeal, but it has taken far too long to produce an alternative way of handling late applications—until just before the recent Summer Recess.
It remains to be seen whether these alternative arrangements are regarded as questionable by the IMA. I would, in any case, be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the new arrangements announced on 17 July, in so far as they apply to the handling of late applicants, will in no respect lead to arbitrary, unilateral or subjective rulings of the sort that were considered by the High Court to be incompatible with our withdrawal agreement. I hope the Minister will commit to handling any problems with greater flexibility than was displayed the last time, and will avoid any further recourse to the courts, which will result only in stress and anxiety for the individuals concerned and bad blood with our European partners. Meanwhile, the European Affairs Committee will itself be considering carefully the terms of the Home Secretary’s remarkably belated reply of late July to our earlier letter. That could lead to further correspondence.
Why does all this matter? Citizens’ rights and the way we handle them are at the heart of the issues of trust and confidence between the two parties to the withdrawal agreement, the UK and the EU, which have been so lamentably deficient in recent years, to the detriment of both parties. We shall be debating in the Chamber on 20 September the best way to restore that trust and confidence and to build a more fruitful and solid post-Brexit relationship. Citizens’ rights and our willingness to stick rigorously to what we signed up to will be an integral part of any such venture.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for securing time for this debate today. I am also grateful to him for his excellent chairmanship of the European Affairs Committee and its predecessor committees. It has been a great pleasure to serve on them.
Of course, it would have been much better if your Lordships could have had an opportunity to discuss this report sooner than 25 months after its publication, but I am heartened to note that our much more recent report on the overall UK-EU relationship, published on 29 April this year, will be debated on 20 September, less than five months after publication. That is impressive progress. It is, however, perhaps fortuitous that the House only now has an opportunity to debate the Citizens’ Rights report, because two more years have elapsed and therefore there has been more time to assess the extent to which the arrangements established under the withdrawal agreement have worked well or not. In addition, the committee carried out some follow-up work in May this year.
My German daughter-in-law, who lives and works in London, was not at all unhappy about the settled status scheme and how it worked. I think the scheme has worked pretty well and has been reasonably well administered. The committee recommended that the Government should introduce a non-digital option for the scheme to assist those who have difficulties with digital technology. In any case, we are all familiar with the process of obtaining certified copies of physical documents, such as passports. So why can they not go to a post office—if they can still find one that does this—or to a solicitor’s or a notary public’s office, with a device to show the original digital document, and a printed copy of it, and obtain certification of that printed copy of the digital document? Would the Minister agree that such a certified copy should have the same status, and would effectively count as a physical form of the document?
Noble Lords have spoken about the High Court’s ruling that EU citizens should not have to apply separately to transfer from pre-settled to settled status. I believe the Government’s position on that subject should be acceptable and should not cause undue inconvenience. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has accepted the High Court judgment of December 2022 and confirmed that any holder of pre-settled status who is eligible to change to settled status suffers no loss of rights if he or she fails to make a second application.
I am interested to note that the number of grants of settled and pre-settled status to EU citizens is now in excess of 6 million, although it is claimed by some that many EU citizens have returned home following Brexit. Does the Minister think that the statistics show that, contrary to expectations, there has been an increase in EU citizens resident in the UK since our withdrawal from the union? Can the Minister explain why the Government’s original upper estimate of likely applicants to the settled status scheme was only 4.1 million, whereas well in excess of 7 million have in the event applied?
There is much less consistency when one examines the question of the residence rights of UK nationals living in the EU. This matter is, of course, not wholly a union competence, and the EU’s member states operate a wide variety of systems. In particular, at our evidence session conducted on 16 May, British in Europe made us aware of high refusal rates for late applications by British citizens for permanent residence status in Sweden and Denmark. The Home Secretary assured us that she wishes to work collaboratively with the European Commission on this. We were also made aware of specific problems in Portugal involving payment for residence documents, and documents being issued for five years when they should be valid for 10 years. Can the Minister tell the committee what discussions the Government have held with the Portuguese Government on this matter, and how they propose to solve the problem?
Other noble Lords have raised further relevant points. I am particularly supportive of all the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, especially his comments concerning the reduction of support available for UK citizens seeking to establish or upgrade their residence rights in EU member states. I thank the noble Earl again for obtaining this debate today and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, first, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for this report. I am not a member of his committee, but I follow what it does. I am afraid I am still an unrepentant remainer—leaving the European Union was a disaster.
My first point is about paper documents. In this country, we sometimes overlook the fact that in most of Europe, paper documents and paper residence permits are extremely important. I do not know of any country in Europe, although Estonia may be one, that does not issue paper documents. The Government should look at some way around this.
I turn to the situation of people living in the European Union and ask the two other party representatives here to tell us what their views are. It seems to me that when we talk about people in Europe, we pretend they do not exist, but they very much exist now they have votes, and we are coming to an election. I would like to see at least one of the parties, preferably the Labour Party because it is more likely to form an alternative Government, come out very clearly and say that it will move as far as it possibly can towards restoring free movement in both directions. We benefited enormously from free movement both in Europe and from people coming from Europe. It seems there are 1.2 million people there and, thanks to our Government, many of them will now have a vote. This is not a small number. It could well swing one or two marginal constituencies, and all the parties need to have a very clear policy about what they are going to do to help our citizens in Europe get their rights, because this is quite fundamental and it is something that can appeal to them.
I have been to Spain to speak to some of our expatriates who live out there, and it is a very big issue. They feel somewhat ignored. I ask that the parties look at the way in which they can make life better for people in Europe, and appeal to them—in other words, put it in the manifestos, boost and bring back the UK national support fund and work with the various migrant groups. Most of the groups in Europe have UK associations, and most of them work and pull people together. They need a message from the political parties in this country that they are wanted and valued—and we are told that there are 1.2 million such people to appeal to.
That is the main reason why I spoke. The second reason, which I have already mentioned, is that I want to see a party committed to bringing back as many of the benefits of the European Union that we have lost as they can. Within the area of citizens’ rights and free movement, a lot can be done, and it will benefit Britain. This is not charity but sheer common sense.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Channel Tunnel operator, Eurotunnel. I am honoured to take up the baton of chairmanship of your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee from the noble Earl. I pay tribute, like others, to his wise and calm leadership of the committee through four turbulent years. The House will have the opportunity to debate his swansong report—if I may put it like that—the landmark report on EU-UK relations, on 20 September. I apologise in advance that I shall not be in the House, as I am unavoidably involved in a state visit to France.
Today’s thoughtful and detailed debate is possible only because of the interest that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the committee have taken over several years in citizens’ rights. I wanted to start, like others, by repeating that, although these issues are complex, they are not abstract: they have a direct impact on the life chances of people across the UK and in the EU.
I pay tribute to the Home Office for the success of the process that has led to 7 million applications for settled status being received and 6.2 million accepted. I want to underline the five important questions that I think have come out of this debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. After that, the committee will reflect on what further work we need to do.
First, how and when will the Home Office give effect to the High Court ruling in the IMA case on the automatic conversion of pre-settled to settled status? Secondly, on the issue of new restrictions on applications to the scheme, as other noble Lords have said, on 17 July the Government announced that having reasonable grounds for a delayed application will now become a requirement for it to be a valid application, even before eligibility is considered. That is no technical change. If, in the view of the Home Office, there are no reasonable grounds for delay, the application is automatically rejected as invalid, regardless of its merits. In that case, there is no administrative review or appeal: the only recourse for an individual is to judicial review, with all the costs and complexity of that.
The Government have also announced the closure of two routes for family reunification and the removal of the right for administrative review of a refusal of eligibility for all future EUSS applications. These changes taken together mean, in effect, that there is now a policy of progressive curtailment of access to the scheme.
Thirdly, on the backlog, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, the analysis given by the3million, as others have said, suggested that it would take three years to clear the current backlog and that the numbers waiting over two years is growing and could now be up to 20,000. Given the real disadvantages for people of being in this limbo, would the Minister accept that efforts to clear the backlog need to be redoubled?
Fourthly, there is the issue of digital status. If the Government are not prepared to think again about the option of a physical document, surely there is an even greater obligation on them to ensure that the online “view and prove” system is accurate, user friendly and robust. We continue to hear of glitches and outages that undermine confidence as well as causing practical problems. When it comes to travel, as the noble Lord, Lord Wood, said, the fact that the system does not link up multiple applications made by the same person can lead to delay, and all the stress that that causes, at the border. This problem will become only more acute with the introduction of the electronic travel authorisation. When will the promised comprehensive solution to the issue of linking multiple applications be in effect?
Fifthly, there is the error on the database—or exercise, as the Home Secretary’s letter put it. Given that, whatever the reasons, a misleading digital status was displayed for almost a year for all refusals in that time, will the Minister review with his colleagues the case for Ministers to use to the full their powers of discretion in not recovering the benefits from that period?
Lastly, I will say a quick word for UK citizens in the EU, echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Although almost all the residence deadlines have now passed, British people will still need assistance in exercising their rights. I know of cases in France, for example, of children of permanent residents who reach the age of 18 finding it difficult to establish their status. Can the Minister confirm that, in addition to working with the Commission in the specialised committee, our excellent embassy network, including the specialised justice and home affairs attachés, will have the resources they need to continue to help British citizens to exercise rights when they are needed?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I have been delighted to join the European Affairs Committee, serving briefly under the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and now under the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts—we are very fortunate in our chairs.
It is a matter for celebration that over 6 million EU citizens have been granted settled status in the UK such that they can continue their enormous contribution from which our country has benefited so much. As Monique Hawkins of the3million—I share the tribute that the noble Lord, Lord Wood, paid to that organisation —told our committee in May:
“I would like to acknowledge the success of the EU settlement scheme and how the Home Office … got so many applications through in a relatively short time, but”—
she adds a little sting in the tail—
“if asked to characterise the current state I would call it somewhat stuck”.
I fear the gremlins need to be addressed. To a certain extent, I will repeat what has been said.
It is pretty shocking that it took a court case to resolve the problem of Home Office insistence on a new application from those originally granted only pre-settled status. I congratulate the Independent Monitoring Authority, which took the challenge to the High Court. It could teach other watchdogs a thing or two—one thinks of water and sewage—about being on the ball and on the case. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, there is a woeful lack of clarity affecting 2 million people about how the automatic conversion to settled status will operate in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Can the Minister also explain how the department’s stance of encouraging further applications for settled status by individuals who have already applied for and received pre-settled status is consistent with the High Court judgment? The3million says that digital status continues to say that people’s rights expire, which is giving incorrect and unlawful information to prospective employers and landlords. Can he explain why a still valid EEA permanent residence document is no longer considered a reasonable ground for a late application? Surely any common-sense reading of a reasonable ground must include such situations.
Can the Minister explain delays in issuing certificates of application? What additional steps are being taken to ensure that in future all such certificates are issued without delay? Why does the Home Office refuse to accept the IMA recommendation of a service standard of five working days to issue such a certificate? As an example of the problems that arise, given that all NHS secondary care is chargeable at 150% for the time before someone can evidence their application for a certificate of application, delay can be very expensive as well as inconvenient.
The3million, as has been mentioned, worries that the axing of rights of administrative review, which was only announced in a written form last week, is likely to hugely increase the workload on immigration tribunals. Can the Minister amplify the reasons for withdrawing administrative review?
On the issuing of public documents, organisations representing EU citizens have told us that applicants to the settlement scheme face difficulties with the certificate of application, when accessing benefits and securing a national insurance numbers and documents such as the EHIC card and a driving license. I hope that the Committee will pursue this in further correspondence, if we do not get a good response today.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, mentioned how, given the Government’s stubborn insistence on reliance on a digital-only system for proof of status, it seems highly inconsistent for the Government to say that users should not have relied on their digital status when accessing benefits or healthcare during the database debacle, but rather an email or postal notification of decisions. I agree with the3million that their proposal for an app with a QR code has substantial merit and deserves to be considered and engaged with in good faith.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I think I had just said that I urged that the3million’s proposal for a QR code should be considered and engaged with in good faith—at least, I hope I had said that.
I have two or three final points. The first is the concern about reduced funding to support vulnerable citizens in the light of the increased complexity of late applications. That would concern EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. I hope the Minister can give us some assurances on that point.
What systems will be in place to ensure that EU citizens face no additional checks or disruption to travel when the ETA rollout begins, given that the advanced passenger information system might not be ready?
Finally, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who addressed questions to the party spokesmen, that Liberal Democrat policy is to rejoin the single market and hence restore freedom of movement and, long term, the aspiration may be to rejoin the EU.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I particularly thank the committee and its chair for their excellent report and their ongoing work to scrutinise the Government’s efforts with regard to citizens’ rights. It is vital. I think a noble Lord said that this is not an abstract issue; it is about real people. I must declare an interest: my husband is a Spanish national. Immediately after Brexit, the one thing we both feared was that our rights to be citizens of two European countries and have the benefits of that, with families and homes in both countries, and our ability to live as EU citizens would be taken away.
I will not be tempted by the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. Brexit has happened; it is there. What we need to do is ensure that the rights that the Government promised after Brexit are properly maintained and implemented. I recall that, when we had those early debates, we estimated the number of people who might be affected. I certainly welcomed all the efforts of the3million. I do not think that any of us really thought that we would be talking about 7 million. It shows the huge personal impact that this can have.
However, I acknowledge—as does the committee—that the scheme launched has been relatively successful. The approach the Government say that they have had in terms of the response to the original committee report, a flexible and pragmatic approach, certainly helps us to persuade the EU to reciprocate and work in a collaborative way. Of course, as we have heard during the debate, changes that may impact that flexible approach will undoubtedly have a damaging effect on our citizens in the EU. I hope the Minister can give some very clear assurances on that, particularly in relation to the Home Secretary’s assurances that we will continue to make representations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned. It is vital.
I will repeat some of the ongoing issues, particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, on the resources UK citizens can rely on in dealing with citizens’ rights issues within the EU. These have obviously diminished, and the UK Nationals Support Fund has closed. We got vague terms in the response from the Government on embassy support, which is really insufficient. People need to know where they can go and what support they can expect. Certainly, that relies on consulates.
The other issue I want to raise is in relation to the Government disagreeing with the committee on the lack of physical documentation. Certainly, the3million has highlighted this, as have others. There are concerns that the digital-only nature of “view and prove” has caused issues for older people, those in Roma and Traveller communities and those with disabilities. I know this from experience; I helped my husband apply for settled status and I made a mistake. It took six months to put it right because you cannot easily pick up a phone and say “I didn’t mean to press that button. I meant to press another button”. It got resolved in the end, and it has certainly not been a problem since, but I want to add to the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other noble Lords raised that it is not simply about a technical issue. People who work and live in this country—people like my husband, who has lived in this country for 28 years, has paid tax and national insurance and shares a home with me—want to feel recognised as someone legitimately living in this country. However, my husband has to rely on some vague computer system. Every time we go through passport control, he does not feel that that has been recognised. That is the important point to bear in mind; it is about more than just simply a technological process. This is about rights people feel they are entitled to, and they feel vulnerable. We need to address that properly. The committee’s work has been brilliant in focusing on those issues.
My noble friend raised the question of the backlog. All noble Lords have raised the issue of people in limbo who have applications in, but the delay in dealing with them means that they will encounter problems in terms of the ETA and advanced passenger transport information which are coming in. These are practical issues that will hugely impact people’s lives. EU citizens are not people who stay in this country permanently; they need to visit their families, and they have bereavements and other issues where they need to respond. We need to hear a bit of empathy and understanding from the Government about what we are talking about here.
In conclusion, I seek reassurance from the Government that they are fully prepared, or preparing, for the influx of settled status applications over the coming years, ensuring that we have clear, simple systems in place that take into account the needs of those people needing most help to apply. It is that empathy that I would like to hear from the Minister. Also, there is the whole question of automatic conversion. We hear that it will take place in 2024—why? What is the delay? Will that cause even greater uncertainty for people? Can we be clear about who will be covered and who are digitally excluded or vulnerable? Will the digitally excluded or vulnerable be prioritised, and how will the Government make sure that those who may need to make applications know? I think these are fundamental questions that I hope the noble Lord will be able to answer this evening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions of the Grand Committee, and in particular I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on securing the debate. Clearly, this is a topic that has long been of interest to him. On behalf of the department, I congratulate him on his distinguished term as chairman of the European Affairs Committee and its predecessor body. His scrutiny has of course been very powerful and helpful, and I thank him for that.
Turning to the EU settlement scheme, it will come as no surprise—and many members of the Committee have alluded to this—that the scheme has been a great success. We have gone above and beyond our obligations in the citizens’ rights agreements to protect the rights of European Economic Area and Swiss citizens and their family members to give them a route to settle in the UK. I also understand and fully support the interest in how UK nationals are treated in EU member and the EFTA states.
As we have heard, around 1 million UK nationals live in the European Union, with thousands more UK nationals living in Switzerland and the EEA and EFTA countries. The UK Government continue to work closely with the European Commission and national authorities to ensure the rights of UK nationals in Europe under the agreements are upheld. We also continue to press the European Union for clear communications to UK nationals in the European Union on how they can secure and access their rights.
The United Kingdom publishes more comprehensive statistics on the EU settlement scheme than any EU member state on their equivalent schemes. I want now to share some of these statistics with the Grand Committee. The EUSS is the UK’s largest ever immigration scheme. The latest data, to 30 June, shows there have been 7.4 million EUSS applications, of which 98% have been concluded, and more than 5.6 million people have been granted status. The Government are delighted that so many of our family, friends, colleagues and neighbours have obtained the status they need to remain in the United Kingdom. However, as the Home Secretary set out in her August letter, to which a number of noble Lords referred, it is right and proper that we take steps to maintain the integrity of the scheme, including measures to protect it from abuse.
Despite it being more than two years since the June 2021 application deadline for those resident before the end of the EU exit transition period, the volume of late applications has remained high. Many of the applications in the so-called backlog to which the noble Lord refers are in fact recently made applications. A number of these include applications made by late applicants, such as those joining family members, or from repeat applicants, such as those looking to move from pre-settled to settled status. We received nearly 337,000 such applications in the first six months of this year alone.
We do not publish data on pending applications, but internal figures for applications pending by 31 March indicate that 66% of EUSS applications had been waiting for 90 days or less. That rises to 76% when including applications pending for 180 days or less. The Home Office will make this analysis available in the next published statistics, but no doubt noble Lords who raised the question of whether there was a backlog will ponder them and see that this is a very efficient system. Applications which have been waiting for longer than 180 days are usually due to suitability concerns, such as pending prosecutions.
As noble Lords will be aware, the citizens’ rights agreements oblige us to accept late applications where the person has reasonable grounds for failure to respect the deadline. In the first two quarters of this year, there were on average 18,000 late applications made each month. While the overall refusal rate for the EUSS remains low, at 8%, this is not the case when looking specifically at late applications. For this case type, the refusal rate stands at 47% in the most recently published data. I suggest this reflects the increasing volumes of spurious applications being made to the scheme, with refusals on eligibility grounds in the majority of cases.
I will now set out the recent changes to the EUSS, most of which have been implemented through changes to the relevant Immigration Rules. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in particular alluded to the change from 9 August of a person’s reasonable grounds for submitting a late application being assessed at the very first stage of the process, known as the validity stage, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, outlined. In practical terms, this means that an individual must show they had reasonable grounds for the delay in making their application as a pre-requisite for making a valid application to the scheme. Only once their application is confirmed as valid are they issued with the certificate of application. That is important because it gives those covered by it the benefits of the citizens’ rights agreements to access temporary protections, such as the right to work in the United Kingdom and claim benefits where eligible. This change in process reduces the scope for speculative applications to the scheme solely to benefit from the temporary protection available until an application is finally determined. It aligns with similar approaches that are already being applied to United Kingdom nationals in EU member states with constitutive systems.
We have also updated our published guidance to provide clear information on how reasonable grounds considerations are now being applied. This is in stark contrast to that adopted in EU member states, where we have been unable to identify equivalent guidance or publicly available information for United Kingdom nationals that matches the comprehensive approach that the United Kingdom has taken in respect of EU citizens. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government continue to urge the European Commission to ensure that member states publish flexible and pragmatic guidance as to what constitutes reasonable grounds for late residency applications so that UK nationals do not encounter difficulties.
As has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, we have separately closed two transitional routes which were not required under the citizens’ rights agreements. These are commonly referred to as the Zambrano primary carers and family members of a qualifying British citizen routes. They reflected routes required by European case law, for which provision was made under the EUSS on a transitional basis. After more than four years, it is both appropriate and fair that such individuals should now meet the same family Immigration Rules that apply to other dependants of British citizens.
In addition, we have made changes that prevent illegal entrants from being able to apply as a joining family member under the EUSS. This reinforces our approach to tackling illegal migration and helps to prevent spurious applications being made by individuals seeking to circumvent our standard immigration processes.
On an issue that has been raised by a number of noble Lords in respect of the removal of administrative review, on 7 September, we laid changes to the Immigration Rules to remove the ability for EUSS and EUSS family permit applicants to apply for an administrative review. A right of appeal will, of course, be maintained as the mechanism for individuals to challenge the decision, and to meet our obligations under the citizens’ rights agreements. The changes will apply to all relevant decisions made on or after 5 October this year. We have gone above and beyond our citizens’ rights obligations in offering both a right of appeal and administrative reviews for EUSS applicants. It is therefore now the right and fair course that we bring the EUSS in line with other immigration routes, where a dual right of redress does not exist.
On a question raised by many noble Lords on the issue of the implementation of the changes in the light of the judicial review brought by the IMA, in the statement of changes in Immigration Rules taking effect in August, we also introduced amendments to that effect. The High Court found that the withdrawal agreement residence right of a person with pre-settled status under the EUSS does not expire for failure to make a second application to the scheme. The changes to the Immigration Rules reflect the fact that pre-settled status holders will have this status automatically extended by two years, if they have not obtained settled status ahead of the date when their pre-settled status was due to expire.
The extension will be applied automatically. There will be no need for individuals to contact the Home Office and they will be notified once the extension has been applied. We have already completed the extensions for those whose pre-settled status was due to expire in September—this month—and future extensions will be applied at the start of each month, to those whose status expires the following month. This ensures that nobody with pre-settled status will lose their immigration status through the lack of a second application to the EUSS. Should the Home Office find that an individual no longer meets the eligibility criteria for pre-settled status, we will take steps to cancel or curtail it—but of course those decisions could carry with them a right of appeal.
Our objective is to encourage those eligible for settled status, as has been outlined, to obtain it as soon as possible. This is, of course, permitted by the judgment. Since March this year we have been sending reminders to apply to those who have held pre-settled status for almost five years, and we strongly encourage people to apply for settled status as soon as they are eligible. This ties back to the point so eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in respect of wanting to know with certainty what your status is.
I am extremely pleased to see thousands of people moving from pre-settled to settled status each month as a result of those communications. To 30 June this year, 608,380 people had made that conversion. Looking to the future, we intend to take steps automatically to switch as many eligible pre-settled status holders as possible to settled status, without them needing to make a further application. To do this, we plan to undertake automated checks of pre-settled status holders against government-held information—for example, in respect of their ongoing continuous residence in the UK. We aim to have this automated process in place during 2024.
The judicial review judgment also concluded that a pre-settled status holder acquires a right of permanent residence under the withdrawal agreement automatically, once the conditions for it are met. The planned process to automatically switch eligible pre-settled status holders to settled status, alongside encouraging applications for settled status by those eligible for it, will support the implementation of this aspect of the judgment.
I turn to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in relation to the detail of that policy. We note that the automatic conversion of pre-settled to settled status is not a requirement of the judgment, just as EU member states are not required automatically to issue permanent residency cards to UK nationals. However, in response to the noble Earl’s question on our engagement with the independent monitoring authority, I stress that we have been engaging with it on matters of implementation. We would suggest that the method of the automatic conversion I have just described is not unclear in any way, and that our implementation of the judgment is abundant for any who wish to see it. We have sought feedback and views on our planning and will, of course, continue productive engagement with the IMA and other interested stakeholders as we take forward steps to operationalise the remaining aspects of the judgment.
I turn briefly to the issue concerning the refusals backfill, described by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as the database error debacle. I perhaps would not agree with that description, although I can understand his concerns. As set out in the Home Secretary’s letter to the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, all those affected were sent an email or postal notification of their refusal decision at the time the decision was made, using the contact details they had supplied. Individuals are able to update their contact details if they need to. The Home Secretary’s letter was quite clear that maintaining a certificate of application on those accounts, rather than showing a refusal decision, was not due to an error but to allow individuals to maintain temporary protection of rights during any administrative review or appeal. This is because, prior to 19 April 2022, the digital status system did not have the capability to reflect that an individual had an administrative review or appeal pending.
At the time the decision to pause uploading refusal decisions was made, the position of the UK Government was that late applications did not attract temporary protections under Article 18(3) of the withdrawal agreement. Therefore, the volume of individuals impacted by the decision was relatively small and finite, importantly. When the numbers affected subsequently grew following the Government’s decision to extend temporary protections to those applying after 30 June 2021, we maintain it was better to ensure that an individual could access their rights while an administrative review or appeal was ongoing, rather than deny those people access to their rights should they challenge the decision.
With respect to timings, on 19 April 2022, a systems change was implemented to allow accounts to maintain a certificate of application where a refusal decision was challenged. As changes to our systems are not implemented retrospectively, a separate exercise was required for cases decided between 27 June 2021 and 19 April 2022. The exercise was not run before 18 January due to the complexity of the work and other pressing departmental priorities, such as the work to implement the Ukraine family scheme and Homes for Ukraine scheme. I hope that level of detail answers the questions posed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
Turning briefly to the question of the DWP overpayments, it has been suggested by a number of noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that a power should be exercised by the Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions to waive overpayment debt for individuals affected by the refusals backfill exercise. I remind noble Lords that under legislation passed by Parliament, the Department for Work and Pensions has the legislative power to recover overpayments of universal credit under Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act regardless of how the overpayment was caused. Of course, the Secretary of State has a duty to protect public funds and will seek to recover debt in all circumstances where it is reasonable.
I will touch very briefly on some further question asked by noble Lords, in particular the question about proof of status and whether that should be in documentary form. In response to that oft-expressed request in this debate for physical documents, I respectfully reiterate that we are working towards a border and immigration system that is digital by default. Immigration status in the form of an e-visa is part of this, as of course is the rolling out of the electronic travel authorisation programme. The citizens’ rights agreement explicitly allows for status to be provided in digital form.
I appreciate that I have covered some of the points raised by noble Lords; there are many others but I notice the time. I will, of course, write to noble Lords to update them on those detailed questions that I have had not had time to answer. Again, I thank the noble Earl for raising this very interesting debate.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I am not sure that he clearly explained—it may be due to the heat in this room and my head—why the Government are encouraging people to apply again. That, I am afraid, did not come over clearly—I felt the Minister glided over that issue. If he did cover it, I will obviously check the report, but if he did not, could he possibly write to me?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I think I covered it, but rather than explain it again now, given the hour, I will certainly put it in writing for the noble Baroness, for clarity.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to four sets of people. First, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for the richness of what he said—it was very interesting—and his promise to continue to write. As I think he will have seen, we are all extremely passionate here about doing the right thing for people who live in our community, and I felt that he went a long way to answering some of our questions. I am very grateful for that indeed, and for his kind words.
Secondly, I thank everyone who took part. It was a high-level and extremely interesting debate. Thirdly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield. Because of my change in role, he took over at a very difficult moment, when we were trying to draw the strands of this together and created an excellent letter with the committee which has been the foundation of our debate this afternoon. I am eternally grateful to him for doing that, because it is a jolly difficult job, and he is a very busy man. He did it with his usual good humour, and I owe him lots of drinks.
My final thanks go to my noble friend Lord Ricketts, who, I must say, arrived with tremendous energy and engagement on top of his great scholarship in this area. Looking now from the sidelines, I am deeply impressed with the way in which he is grappling with all the great complexities of European affairs.
I will not go through all the other points—lots of good ones were made—other than to say that the speech that in many ways I wish I had made was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. She focused on the situation for UK nationals in the European Union, and much of what we have been saying is about European Union nationals in the UK. The IMA serves the 6 million people here so well; it is very good indeed. We had lots of chats with it before it came for the evidence session. We do not really have an equivalent servicing our people in Europe. In probably a rather coded way, we are saying that a little bit of government money there could make a big difference. I hope that element will come out in the Minister’s letter to us all.
House of Lords
Clothing Sales: Sustainability
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what they assess to be a sustainable level of clothing sales by volume and material in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have not made an assessment of sustainable levels of clothing sales, but reducing textiles waste will be critical to hitting our net-zero goals. Our Maximising Resources, Minimising Waste paper, published in July, outlines our initial policy proposals for reducing textiles waste. We propose to ban textiles waste from landfill, require clothing retailers to provide in-store take-back of unwanted textiles and ask businesses to separate textiles waste for reuse and recycling.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his Answer and am pleased that he acknowledged the critical place of dealing with the fashion sector, given that 20% of the world’s water use and 10% of greenhouse gases are generated by this and that the level of waste has trebled in the last 20 years. However, in the EU they are actually making very strong rules compared with what the Minister offered: clothing must become more durable, more repairable and more recyclable, and they are demanding extended producer responsibility. When is the UK going to catch up with—or, if we are to be world leading, exceed—what the EU is doing now?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We have very demanding targets in our Environment Act commitments, which include reduction by 50% to 2019 levels. The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the impact of fashion and textiles in terms of both carbon and the use of embedded water, and we will be publishing details next year of how we are going to progress the producer responsibility for textiles. Our priority is packaging.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, there are some outrageous claims made by people in the fashion industry about the sustainability of their products. What are the Government going to do about greenwashing and about tackling those claims, some of which are fabricated claims? The EU, as we have heard, is taking action, and that is one of the things it is going to legislate on. Are the Government similarly going to take action on that?
Lord Benyon (Con)
What the Government can have the most control over is what happens to clothing when it has finished being used, so we are working with the industry on durability and then diverting it away from landfill. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right that the supply chain comes from right around the world. The amount of clothing produced doubled between 2015 and 2020. This was because of a higher number of middle-class people and their demand for clothing, and it has come at a great environmental cost. The clothing industry may not be the biggest emitter, in terms of carbon and its impact on water, but the Government are working internationally and domestically to tackle this very serious problem.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, as the chair of a new commission on plastics and the environment, I am conscious of the contribution of clothing to the mass of plastics gradually killing off our oceans. Are the Government doing anything to reduce the amount of plastics used in clothing materials in order to begin to address that problem?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are certainly having ongoing engagement with the industry to try to reduce the amount of plastics. Of course, there is sometimes a trade-off with plastics when you are trying to get more durable garments that are not disposed of so quickly, but the UK water industry research project, which was done by the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, reported in April last year that wastewater treatment plants remove 99% of microplastics by number and 99.5% by mass. We are looking at what France is proposing, which is a mandatory filter in washing machines, and that may be a direction down which we will go.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talked of a variety of sources. Could he Minister tell us how much cotton has come to us in the last 18 months in products grown in Xinjiang? This cotton is grown by slave labour and can be checked out by the technical element analysis system pioneered by Oritain, rather than by paper trails. Cotton products can be checked to see where the cotton was grown, and the Government have consistently promised they will check on the sources of cotton. What have the Government actually done about it in the last 18 months?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Our anti-slavery legislation went a long way towards requiring companies to develop robust information on their supply chains. I cannot give the noble Lord a precise answer about the amount of cotton that has come from that area, or how many of the workers involved were or were not—by our standards—properly employed. However, it is a very serious issue. The consumer can create a great demand on retailers and retailers can have a great effect. The Government must play their part, though. Domestically, we have 62% of clothing retailers signed up to our voluntary agreement, which goes precisely to the point the noble Lord makes. That means there are still some that are not, but we will continue to make sure that we have full transparency within the supply chain.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, we are now well into Second Hand September. Speaking as somebody who made a vow 12 years ago to never buy anything new for the rest of my life, might I encourage my noble friend to join this campaign? eBay, charity shops, Swishing and Vinted are all alternatives to us buying new clothes and creating more of a problem.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is a living example that buying from thrift shops is what we should all be doing. This month in particular, we should be encouraging people to do that. Slow fashion is the way forward. We need to continue to make sure that we are requiring manufacturers and retailers to make and sell goods that last longer, are properly supplied and do not go landfill when they come to the end of their natural life. Recycling is an emerging technology, but the most important thing is that we all stop buying so many new things.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, an estimated 92 million tonnes of textile waste are created annually by the fashion industry. This is set to increase by 2030. Thinking of Marrakesh as an example, would the Minister agree that it would be better for this redundant clothing to go to parts of the world where people have lost their homes and possessions, instead of to landfill?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Like everyone in this House, I pay huge tribute to those charities and organisations that do precisely that. It is absolutely vital that support is given to people in vulnerable circumstances who have lost everything so that they can clothe themselves and their families. It also shows us the importance in our lives of trying to develop policies, both as a Government and societally, so that we use less, consume less and, where we can, support those in need.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, with three-quarters of UK exports going to Europe, fashion is yet another creative industry detrimentally affected by Brexit. Has the Minister seen the new report produced for the industry by the University of the Arts London and the University of Leeds, detailing the many difficulties, which include concerns over sustainability and improving ethical practice?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I have not seen that document, but I know that the UK fashion industry directly generated an estimated £28.9 billion gross added value contribution to the UK economy. That is a factor. Of course, we want that to be a sustainable industry, but I hope we take great pride in the fact that this country has a leading role in the international fashion industry and we want that to continue.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, textiles recycling varies significantly across different local authority areas. As we have heard, although some fashion retailers offer their own recycling schemes, both councils and retailers have the same problem: not everything is recyclable, so a proportion of material will always end up in landfill or being incinerated. This situation is not helped by fashion brands and retailers that purposefully destroy old stock rather than offering it at a discount. How do the Government plan to improve access to textiles recycling, while also ensuring that there is transparency about its limitations?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We have made some progress. The Textiles 2030 policy, promoted by WRAP, helps signatories to reduce their water and carbon footprints per tonne of clothing by 18.2% and 21% respectively. We want to help local authorities with the work that they are doing and they are being funded to bring forward changes to packaging recycling collections through the extended producer responsibility payments. Separate food waste collections will be funded via new burdens payments, and new collection requirements for consistency in recycling for households in England will come in shortly.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, following on from the question from my noble friend Lady Jenkin, might we all be able to avoid buying new clothes if the authorities in this House did something about the moths?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I spoke earlier about consistency; it is always freezing in here and boiling out there, so you never know what to wear.
Russia: Sanctions
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of sanctions against Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, sanctions by the United Kingdom and its international partners have starved Russia of key western goods and technology, degrading Russia’s military and restricting its capacity to fight a 21st-century war. UK exports of machinery and transport equipment have decreased by 98%. Sanctions also limit Russia’s financial resources. The UK has sanctioned 29 Russian banks, accounting for over 90% of the Russian banking sector. We have also frozen over £18 billion-worth of Russian assets in the UK. Without sanctions, we estimate that Russia would have over $400 billion more to fund its war machine.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. The stated aim of sanctions is to
“encourage Russia to cease its destabilising actions in Ukraine”.
It seems to me that there is no evidence that sanctions have had any such impact. Russian GDP has dropped by a mere 2% and the country is skilled in circumventing sanctioned goods through third countries. Despite being subject to 13,000 different sanctions, which I think is more than any other country before, they have made no appreciable difference to Russia’s behaviour—we think of its links with North Korea, China, Iran and so on. Are the Government therefore prepared to move to more precisely targeted smart sanctions, the aims of which are clearly defined and the impact of which more measurable?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate talked about the impact of sanctions. I can share with him that sanctions are having a direct impact. On revenues alone, they have left Russia’s budget in deficit, rather than the surplus that the Russian Government themselves predicted for 2022. Russia has suffered an annual deficit of £47 billion, the second highest of the post-Soviet era. Russia’s energy revenues fell 47% in the first half of this year. At the same time, global oil prices are lower. Less immediately visible, but more importantly in the long-term, more than 1,000 foreign businesses have left Russia, along with thousands of high-skilled workers. More continues to be done, as we co-ordinate and work with other countries. Particularly notable recently is that Armenia, Turkey and Kazakhstan have taken action on the issue of supply chains, which the right reverend Prelate raised. That kind of co-ordination is important if we are going to make these sanctions work across the piece.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we will let my noble friend ask his question and then we will go over to the noble Lord, Lord Sahota.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, on targeted sanctions, the oligarchs who make up the inner circle around Putin, and the huge number of people who have property here, have almost invariably made their money by nefarious means—they must have done, because 30 years ago there was no private capital in Russia. Could my noble friend the Minister give us an update on how many oligarchs are having their property—and whatever else—put into suspension so that we can confiscate and use it to rebuild Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that we all want—I think I speak for the whole House—to get Russia to pay for its war on Ukraine. At the time of the invasion, the UK sanctioned 129 oligarchs who have a combined net worth of around £145 billion. As I said earlier, we have frozen £18 billion-worth of Russian assets under the regime. The UK has also set up specialist agencies in the NCA and, as I said earlier, we are working with key partners. Legal hurdles need to be addressed, but we are not doing that alone—other partner countries are also looking to allow those assets, now that they are frozen, to be moved across. Ultimately, when the war ends, we can use the money from those assets in the reconstruction of Ukraine.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister signed a joint declaration at G20 which did not condemn the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Is the Government going soft on Russia now?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am sorry to say that I cannot disagree more with the noble Lord. We have not gone soft on Russia; this House has not gone soft on Russia; this country not gone soft on Russia. At meetings such as the G7 and the G20, there are a broad number of countries and alliances. I assure the noble Lord that I have sat in many meetings where we have had to agree a statement; the fact that Ukraine was mentioned in that statement, with Russia present in the room, indicates a way forward. We also have to address these issues with partners who still do not have the same view as us, and we do that through effective diplomacy and specific action, as we are taking with our key partners.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows that Russia’s export in goods is now at pre-war levels, and the very friends the Minister referred to—in India and the Gulf—are offering financial services directly to Moscow. We are currently negotiating trade agreements with those areas, offering them preferential UK market access. Does the Minister share my concern that we are actively encouraging financial instruments who are supporting the Russian war machine to have preferential UK market access? Surely that cannot be right.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, many of those countries, including India specifically, have had historic and legacy relationships with Russia. As the noble Lord is aware, India has relied on Russian defence support for a long time over history. It is right that we talk directly, and raise those concerns, with key partners such as the UAE and India, while, at the same time, working constructively to ensure that there are alternatives. I assure the noble Lord that we are seized of that; it is why we are making progress in our discussions on the issue of circumvention with key countries such as the UAE. Turkey recently initiated certain procedures domestically to assist in this respect. Let us be very clear that, while Kazakhstan has a strong reliance on Russia, it is looking at its domestic legislation to see how it can curb the issue of circumvention.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister explain to the House why we have a memorandum of understanding with the United States on co-operation over sanctions against Russia but we do not have one with the European Union? Could he also explain why the Foreign Secretary fended off the recommendation by the European Affairs Committee of this House that we need a properly structured framework for co-operation with the EU on sanctions so that, together, we could make them more effective?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been very much leading on direct engagement with our partners in the European Union, not just on the issue of sanctions specific to this Question but on a broad range of issues. I know that we will shortly be looking in the Moses Room at various committee reports. I assure the noble Lord that we are working very much hand in glove with our key partners—that is, Canada, the United States, the European Union and others—to ensure that sanctions are co-ordinated. I look to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, specifically—this may have been his question—and say that we are working hand in glove with those partners, and the impact on Russia is beginning to tell.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me ask that question, as the Minister provokes me into it. Last week, I asked him specifically about Ursula von der Leyen’s statement about freezing €200 billion-worth of assets. The EU has announced that publicly. He said last Thursday that we support this initiative. Let us have a clear statement from the Government today that we will act in concert with the EU and announce our intention to freeze assets so that they can be repurposed for rebuilding Ukraine.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that, in many years across the Dispatch Box with him I have sought not to provoke him, and if I have done so, I have failed miserably on this occasion. However, I can give him that assurance. I totally agree with President von der Leyen’s statement, and we are working with our key partners on ensuring that the assets that have been frozen stay there. The important thing is the legal impact, and no country, including the various jurisdictions of the EU, has yet designed the system and structure to allow for those assets to be deployed for the reconstruction of Ukraine. We are working with the key countries, and, as the noble Lord knows from the Ukrainian Recovery Conference, with the private sector, on reconstruction.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Given the assertion in the Washington Post last month that 6,000 drones have been supplied by Iran to Russia, will the Foreign Office reconsider its position on Iran, and in particular the IRGC?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend knows, we have taken a very firm line on Iran and sanctions. As the Minister responsible for Iran within the FCDO, I can say that we have taken a forward-leaning position on ensuring that Iran is held accountable for its actions. I agree with my noble friend that it is appalling that drones have been supplied directly by Iran. It is also interesting to note that Russia is now looking to the likes of Iran and the DPRK, both countries themselves subject to sanctions. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is saying from the Front Bench about the IRGC—that is why God has given us two ears: one for the questioner and one for the Labour Front Bench. Of course, I cannot speculate on future proscription, but I assure noble Lords that we keep all tools under review.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Did our Prime Minister raise with Mr Modi the fact that India is still importing a large amount of Russian oil that is then being mixed with other oils, and so it is difficult to identify, and resold on the international markets? This is dangerous in a number of ways. First, it supports Russia, but, secondly, we are getting a plethora of very dangerous tankers—I got ships in—around the oceans of the world, which is a real problem.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Tankers—as I know from the definition at school—count as ships, so, again, awards must go to the noble Lord. The Prime Minister had wide-ranging discussions with all G20 partners and during his bilateral with Prime Minister Modi. As the noble Lord will be aware, Russia and its illegal war on Ukraine were among a number of points that the Prime Minister raised directly with Prime Minister Modi.
National Crime Agency: Fraud and Economic Crime
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the total number of National Crime Agency staff dedicated to the prevention or investigation of (1) fraud, and (2) economic crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, due to operational sensitivity and flexible deployment of resources in response to demand, it is not possible to provide a precise figure of staff allocated to a particular type of criminality. However, the NCA’s National Economic Crime Centre, the NECC, leads the response to economic crime, including fraud. As of 1 August 2023, the headcount for the NECC, which brings together law enforcement agencies, government departments, regulatory bodies and the private sector, was 123.5 full-time equivalent. Many other teams across the NCA also contribute to the investigation of economic crime, in addition to the NECC.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the only way to assess the adequacy or otherwise of resources devoted to battling fraud, which was assessed last year to cost this country £219 billion, and economic crime—I understand that the Government’s own assessment is that this costs the country between £300 billion and £350 billion—is to look at the results. Will the Minister tell the House how many investigations the NCA has conducted in each of, or even one of, the last three years? How many cases of fraudsters targeting the UK from abroad have resulted in any criminal justice outcome and how many in any form of disruptive action? If he cannot do that, can he tell us how many investigations the Government expect it to conduct this year?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Significant resources are being allocated to the NECC to improve its investigatory capabilities. It will end up with an additional 400 new officers dedicated to tackling fraud; some of those will go to the NCA, some to the City of London Police and some to regional and organised crime units. They will be recruited by March 2025. There are also 475 new highly trained financial crime investigators, partly funded by the economic crime levy, who will also be spread across intelligence, enforcement and asset recovery at key agencies. I will not speculate as to their likely success, but I certainly hope they have some.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, has the time not come to simplify the investigation of fraud? As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, suggested, the crimes are massive and the response is weak, even with the investment the Government are about to make. The problem with local forces investigating is that violence always trumps theft, so resources are devoted more to violence. At the moment, the complex nature of the crime—crypto, cross-jurisdictional, online—is complicated further by a 43-force response, regional units, NCA, SFO; I could go on. Surely the time has come to have one force dedicated to prevention, detection and the recovery of assets.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the City of London Police partially fulfils that function. It prioritised investigators to the City of London as part of its recent increase in the numbers of police. Angela McLaren, the commissioner there, has a strong background in economic crime and its investigation, and the City of London Police runs an economic crime academy. The noble Lord makes an interesting point about having just one agency, but that agency is the National Economic Crime Centre, which co-ordinates all the various activities across the various police forces, including regional organised crime units.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, given that the UK cyber industry plays a critical role in supporting law enforcement to tackle cyber-enabled fraud, when will the Government reform the Computer Misuse Act so that the cyber industry does not face legal jeopardy for protecting our citizens and businesses online? Is it not high time that the Home Office came to a conclusion on its review?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I cannot speculate on that Act but the anti-fraud champion, Anthony Browne MP, has been having some close engagement with industry. An online sector charter—which I appreciate is not entirely the same thing but is certainly related—is due to be published in the autumn, so we should watch and wait for that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Hourglass, the charity particularly concerned with abuse of older people, has drawn attention to the problems of economic crime and financial abuse that affect many older people. Is this being taken forward by the agency as an area that it needs to give more attention to?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point that we should not forget the victims of economic crime. I want to make two points here. First, the fraud strategy looks at three aspects of this crime: pursuing the individuals doing it, empowering people to avoid it—which takes in the victims the noble Lord describes—and preventing the scams and whatnot taking place in the first instance. Secondly, as the noble Lord will be aware, Action Fraud is being redesigned, which will help. Already, anybody who reports to Action Fraud where vulnerabilities are detected will receive a bespoke counselling service after they have engaged with it.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister will know well that one of the themes that emerged during our debates on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill was the inequality of bargaining power that often existed between the agencies that have to pursue fraudsters and those fraudsters, who were often heavily lawyered-up to enable them to resist any applications. One of the initiatives brought forward by this Government under the Criminal Finances Act was unexplained wealth orders. Can the Minister explain why they have been used on so few occasions? Is it because of lack of resources? Is it because of the risk on costs? What other explanation is there for such a powerful potential weapon not being utilised?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware, from other conversations that we have been having around the various aspects of the Bill that will go through the House this afternoon, that the agencies tell us they are appropriately resourced. I cannot account for the small number of UWOs that have been issued, but I will continue to keep it under review and report to the noble Lord.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Browne made a really good point about the number of people investigating fraud, because people generally feel that fraud is given a very low priority. The Government themselves have said that in recruiting people there is a particular need to understand that the type of person with the sorts of skills that need to be recruited may be different from the normal crime-fighting model that we have. They have also said that they are taking steps to address that, particularly in respect of cybercrime. Can the Minister update us on what the Government are doing to recruit people with the necessary skills in this area?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point, and I think he is aware of my opinions on this subject. Clearly, it is a difficult area for the entire economy—not just the agencies responsible for fighting crime but those who are involved in the online world where, of course, much of this crime takes place. I have referred to the large number of new officers being recruited; as far as I understand it, they are on track to be recruited according to the timescales that have been set out. I cannot really comment any more on the recruitment process itself, but I will certainly ask the question and come back to the noble Lord.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, what steps will the Government take to introduce a safer ageing strategy for older people to protect them against economic crime and fraud?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I just referred to the fraud strategy that was published in May this year, a sizeable part of which is about empowering people to avoid being defrauded in the first place. I recommend that the noble Baroness refers back to that; of course, I would be happy to discuss it further in future debates.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, would the National Crime Agency not be in a stronger position today had it not appointed as its director-general of operations Mr Steve Rodhouse, who is currently suspended from his normal duties while he is investigated for gross misconduct as head of the infamous Operation Midland, through which our former colleagues Lord Bramall, Lord Brittan and others were hounded mercilessly over allegations made by a fantasist? Is it not shocking that, so far, of all those found culpable by Sir Richard Henriques after his independent inquiry seven years ago, Mr Rodhouse alone has been the subject of a disciplinary process?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend asks a good question. It is one that I am unable to answer; I cannot speculate as to whether it would have had that much operational impact on the National Crime Agency. I go back to the point I made earlier: the NCA is well resourced and its budget has increased year on year since 2019. I do not believe that it should have had any impact, but my noble friend is entitled to his point of view.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister say something about why and how the Government protect those who engage in economic crime and fraud? Let me refer to an example. The Bank of Credit and Commerce International was closed in July 1991 after the biggest banking fraud of the 20th century. To this day, there has been no independent investigation. Through litigation against the Treasury, I obtained one document, codenamed the Sandstorm report, which shows that the Government are protecting al-Qaeda, arms and drug smugglers, murderers and others who committed fraud through that bank. I invite the Minister to place a copy of the Sandstorm report in the Library of the House and, if he will not, to explain what is so secret that it cannot be made public.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will not place a copy of that report in the Library. I am afraid that I am not qualified to speak on events from 32 years ago.
Afghanistan: Aid for Women
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to aid and support the women of Afghanistan since the departure of United Kingdom armed forces.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we prioritise support for women and girls in response to the Taliban’s repression. We have repeatedly urged the Taliban to reverse harmful policies. I assure the noble Lord that we raise these issues internationally. I regularly meet Afghan women and leaders to hear their concerns directly. Since April 2021, the Government have disbursed more than £532 million to Afghanistan, giving 2.3 million women access to food, healthcare and other essential assistance. At least 50% of beneficiaries of UK aid are women and girls.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, the Taliban have targeted women and girls by using decrees which place severe restrictions on freedom of movement, expression and association, prohibitions on virtually all forms of employment and bans on secondary and higher education, as well as permitting arbitrary arrests and violations of the rights of liberty. Taken together, that is arguably a crime against humanity based on gender, so what further actions can the Government take to support women human rights defenders who seek safe passage to the UK because their lives are under grave threat?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I believe that I speak for most noble Lords but I believe on a point of principle that the humanitarian support that we have given to the people of Afghanistan, supported by Pakistan, Uzbekistan and other near neighbours, has been the right approach. We cannot discard over 36 million people. We have also sought to provide support for those who are most vulnerable, those who work directly with the United Kingdom, through the various schemes that we have run—the ACRS pathway 3 and the ARAP. Those schemes support their access to the United Kingdom, particularly Chevening scholars working within the security firm GardaWorld but also those who worked within the British Council. That still is work in progress on year 1.
There is a lot more that we can do but we directly address the Taliban and say that what they are doing is not just against our assessment of human rights but against the assessment of the very faith that they claim to follow. Rights of women are human rights and the Taliban need to uphold them.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government for the moral support that they have offered to the Afghan women so far, particularly my noble friend the Minister, who has consistently met them. However, can he please tell me how the UK Government will help those Afghan women to be part of any international talks and able to play a part in the future of their country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her kind remarks. As I say, it is about doing your job, but I pay tribute to her and to all other noble Lords who have worked collectively on this important agenda. There is no easy solution, but I assure my noble friend that we are working directly with leaders from various representative groups of women in Afghanistan and more broadly too. We continue to engage with key personnel on the ground in Afghanistan who were previously involved within administration while it was still functioning, but equally we are working with key international partners, notably Indonesia and Qatar among others, to ensure that the issue of Afghanistan is kept on the front burner and that inclusivity—the restoration of women’s rights and all rights, including minority rights—is not forgotten.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the growth of cluster education, or cluster classes, whereby groups of secondary school girls gather in neighbourhood houses and qualified teachers visit them. The scheme with which I am involved is now educating upwards of 1,000 girls in three provinces in Afghanistan. In a very few cases, local Taliban commanders have asked whether their daughters can join those classes. Is this something that the UK Government would support, since it is often difficult for those international aid agencies operating in Afghanistan to do it as it runs right across the policy of the Taliban? Maybe the UK has got a channel for funding this kind of education.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, recognising the important work that the noble Baroness has done, of course we fully support such initiatives. As she will know all too well, we protect the agencies that we work with on the ground to allow them to continue their important work, particularly when it comes to girls’ education. In our general assessment, there are now six to eight regions within Afghanistan where, because of the fragmented structure of the Taliban, there are initiatives which allow health access but also allow women in certain respects to go to work and allow girls to be educated.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I also pay tribute to the Minister, who has personally worked tirelessly to help Afghan refugees fleeing the brutality of the Taliban. His commitment is well documented.
Do the Government accept that the deteriorating situation for Afghan women, as we have heard, amounts to gender persecution, which is a crime against humanity? This has happened in plain sight of the world over the last two years. What global support is taking place, such as we had in 2001 when the world rallied behind the cause of Afghan women? If Afghan women’s rights were important in 2001, surely they are just as important in 2023? What support is taking place globally to bring this gender apartheid, or gender persecution, to an end?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, recognising the important work the noble Baroness has done in this respect, I think I speak for everyone in saying that what is happening in respect of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan is abhorrent. It is against the very traditions of the faith that the Taliban claim to follow; it is not right, it is simply wrong. That is why we are working with key partners within the Islamic world—for them to seize back the narrative on empowerment of women and girls’ rights and education. On our specific support, we are working with key agencies. I have already alluded to the figures but—just to share with the noble Baroness—we are supporting 4.2 million people with food assistance, of whom 2 million are women and girls. The issue of nutrition is high on our agenda, as well as empowering them through education.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many Afghan interpreters who have been relocated to the UK have wives still awaiting security clearance in Afghanistan so that they can join their husbands here, as they are entitled to do? They are very likely to be living in vulnerable situations while they wait; even living in hiding. Perhaps the Minister could write to me if he does not have this figure to hand today.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I keep abreast of figures on a weekly basis, but I do not go into specific details at the Dispatch Box for the sole reason of protecting those vulnerable individuals. We have seen a large number of interpreters arrive in the UK and there is an issue about supporting family members. Where I can, I will share the specifics with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps by a slip of the tongue the expression “gender apartheid” was just used by a previous speaker. Increasingly, that terminology is used by Afghans who are here in exile, by the international community and by lawyers. A great deal of research has been done in support of it by South African lawyers, because apartheid means denial of participation in society—keeping apart. I wonder whether that is language that is accepted, and might be used by, the Foreign Office and whether the full force of the Foreign Office could be put behind amending the Rome statute so that it included gender apartheid as a crime against humanity.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness with her legal background has far more insights into the technicalities and changes that she is proposing, but I can say to her that what is happening to women and girls in Afghanistan is nothing short of abhorrent and we need to do our utmost to ensure that we stand up for their rights and afford them the protections that we can. I assure the noble Baroness that we are working in a very focused manner on that objective.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, regrettably but perhaps understandably, there are still a large number of women in neighbouring countries, not least Pakistan, waiting to find somewhere to start their lives again. Many are former high-ranking officials, human rights defenders, policewomen or women connected to the police and politicians. Can my noble friend the Minister, who I know takes an enormous interest in these matters and I congratulate him on so doing, reassure this House that none of those women will be forcibly repatriated to Afghanistan against their will? If they are, many of them will meet a bleak future.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks and I assure him that we are working very closely with the neighbouring Governments to Afghanistan, particularly Pakistan. Notwithstanding the change of Administration in Pakistan, they have been very supportive of our efforts to sustain and retain the people who have sought refuge there while their immigration status is finalised. Vulnerable women and girls are at the forefront our work in that respect.
Offshore Wind
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to ensure the continued development of the offshore wind industry following the failure to attract bids in the latest Contracts for Difference round.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are disappointed that no offshore or floating offshore wind projects secured contracts for difference in the most recent allocation round. The results provide valuable learning for subsequent auctions. Work has already started on allocation round 6, incorporating the results of the recent round, and we look forward to a strong pipeline of technologies participating. The Government remain fully committed to our target of decarbonising the power system by 2035 and to our ambitions for 50 gigawatts of offshore wind, including up to 5 gigawatts of floating wind.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but can we really wait? Look at what has happened in other countries: for example, Germany had a similar experience in December then, in the subsequent two quarters, lifted its price cap and increased its number of bids by several times. In the US, Massachusetts had a failure and New York is now considering petitions to offer a higher price. This is the low-cost, low-carbon alternative: the industry is now suggesting that there is a 24-gigawatt gap for the 2030 target. Surely the Government should be taking immediate action in the shorter term to fix this problem of their own creation, given that this was widely predicted to happen before the contracts closed.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to hear the noble Baroness be so cavalier with bill payers’ funds; she is, in effect, talking about increasing the strike price. It is always difficult for the Government to strike the right balance: we want to get the best value possible for bill payers, as opposed to providing sufficient revenue for the companies to build. I obviously know which side the noble Baroness is on but I want to be on the side of the bill payer. We have already secured the largest offshore wind sector in Europe by far; she quotes the example of Germany, which should be very jealous of the amount of offshore wind capacity that we have. We secured almost 7 gigawatts in the last allocation round and, in this round, secured 91 projects with other technologies. There is a viable long-term pipeline of about 77 gigawatts of wind available to this Government and we will take advantage of it, but we will make sure that we do it at the right price for consumers.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I am on the side of bill payers. The problem is that they will have to pay more, because we will not have the renewable energy that we would have had and will have to use more expensive gas instead. This was the Government’s fault; everybody warned that the reserve price was too low. But let us forget the past. Why can emergency legislation not pass through the House, which I am sure would be supported by all sides, so that we can replay this very quickly for the bill payer?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The bill payer will be very grateful that 7.5 gigawatts of construction is already under way, as we speak. We all want to see more, but at the right price. I understand why industry is urging us to pay more for this. That is understandable and in its commercial interests, but I would have expected most Members of this House to be on the side of bill payers as well. We can do both: we can get a good deal for the bill payer and take advantage of the many gigawatts of potential construction in there, which has either been consented or is under consent. Following a contract being let, it takes three to four years, on average, for the capacity to come on stream. Obviously, the capacity let in previous rounds is coming on stream gradually, as we speak. As I said, we consented to about 7.5 gigawatts in the last round. There will be another auction in about six months and it would take almost that long to pass new legislation.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the increase in potential of both productivity and profitability for wind power companies to fit turbines to the base of their installations, where conditions allow, to take advantage of tidal energy, which provides a baseload. What support are the Government giving companies prepared to do that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness asks a very good question. Eleven tidal stream projects were consented in this allocation round, totalling about 41 megawatts. The price for that is currently higher but we need to develop this technology. I hope, as has been the case with offshore wind, that if we continue to let more CfDs the price will continue to come down over time. That was one area of the round that was successful.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, given the Government’s monumental failure—and they were warned about it, as has been said around this House—to attract any interest whatever from the energy sector in their recent CfD bidding process for offshore wind projects, can we assume there will not be any similar complacency when it comes to developing onshore wind projects, which, in light of the current failure, must now be the Government’s priority towards achieving net zero?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Again, there is no complacency. I understand that there are many projects wanting the go-ahead, but we must be careful in making sure that the consumer gets a fair deal. Lots were consented to last year; I am sure that lots will be consented to in the future. The noble Lord talks about onshore wind. I am pleased to tell him that 24 onshore wind projects were consented to and were successful in this round, totalling 888 megawatts.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that a number of us have taken an interest in this market, recognising the enormous steps that His Majesty’s Government have taken on the development of offshore wind? At a time when it is stated that we are facing a possible bill of £65 billion to replace the internal grid to all our homes in the United Kingdom, is it not more appropriate that the resources we do have should be used for research such as that into the mix of hydrogen with LPG to see whether it can be used in the existing pipelines available to every house in the country?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord asks a lot of different questions within what he said. I think his figure of £65 billion refers to the cost of upgrading property to EPC level C, which is a long-term aim. His separate question on hydrogen for heating is indeed a controversial subject. We will make a decision on whether to go ahead with a hydrogen village trial by the end of the year. Similarly, another issue facing us is whether to allow blending of hydrogen into the gas network; you can blend up to about 25% with the current network. Again, that is an issue where, frankly, there are a lot of pros and cons on both sides of the argument. We will make a decision on that by the end of the year as well.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
The next round comes in six months’ time. Are the Government confident that the price will be set at the right level to attract a good number of significant bids?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, that will be our aim. As I said, we want to see more projects consented to and we will try to get the balance right. We will certainly learn the lessons from this round. It is obviously disappointing that we did not attract bids this time, but the offshore wind industry has been a tremendous success for the UK. We have by far the largest capacity in Europe. We have the largest offshore wind farm in the world, the second largest, the third largest and the fourth largest. One reason that developers were unable to proceed this time was pressure in the supply chain. There is pressure in the supply chain because every other country in Europe wants to copy our example, because they can see the success we have made of the offshore wind allocation rounds through the contracts for difference price system. Most other European countries are trying to adopt the same model; they are a long way behind us but trying to adopt the same model now. Of course, that brings pressure in the supply chain, which, adding in the Covid pressures as well, contributes to the increase in costs that industry is experiencing.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that wind-generating facilities in the North Sea tend to cause mayhem with the wild bird population? Can anything be done about that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend certainly highlights a concern, but lots of protections are built in and lots of environmental regulations need to be adhered to when these projects are consented to and all the matters are gone into fully, in both environmental and regulatory permitting. Every energy source has its drawbacks. Those who are against nuclear would point to its drawbacks; with coal-fired power stations, there are obviously drawbacks; gas-fired power stations have their drawbacks. There has been an increase in new solar farms being developed in the UK. I can assure noble Lords that, from my postbag, lots of people write in to complain about those as well. We have to get generation capacity and electricity supplies from somewhere. No system is absolutely perfect but offshore wind is certainly one of the best.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it is unacceptable that last week’s offshore wind auction was a failure because of the Government’s insistence on an unrealistic strike price, yet we remain none the wiser about the cost of another source of electricity—nuclear energy. The cost of Sizewell C’s electricity remains shrouded in secrecy. The only thing we can be sure of is that it will be exceedingly expensive. The Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has called for greater transparency on Sizewell’s cost. Will the Minister take this opportunity to give an updated cost estimate for Sizewell C? We need to be sure that we are on a level playing field.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will be happy to supply those figures to the noble Baroness in writing if I can. Again, it is worth saying that, in a diversified energy system, it is important to have different sources of supply. I am very enthusiastic about solar and offshore wind; they are intermittent but they are cheap when they are generating. We also need baseload supply, so there will a role for nuclear and for gas-fired power stations, ideally with CCUS fitted as well. It is important that we have diversity of supply, including such things as tidal on a relatively small scale. Geothermal is another technology that was successful in getting contracts under this allocation round. Again, these are nascent technologies that are starting to build up. We need diversity of supply for our future generating mix.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that Britain is a world leader in offshore wind; he is right to boast gently about that. But he also said that lessons would be learned from what has just happened. Is my noble friend Lord Deben not right that we got it wrong—and that we must make absolutely sure that in six months’ time we get it right?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have said that lessons will be learned. As I said, there is a healthy stream of projects wanting to come forward. Understandably, the developers want to be paid as much as possible. The unique thing about offshore wind is that it involves very high initial capital investment costs. Once the things are built, they are relatively cheap to operate, unlike some other sources of generation. It is all about providing long-term guarantees of revenue for those developers. There is always a process of negotiation; the CfD auction rounds have been successful in the past and I am sure that they will be in the future.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. The Minister recognises that the offshore wind industry raised these issues some time before this round of contracts for difference. The Government did not listen and we have the results with offshore wind, as we have seen. At this time, the onshore wind industry is saying to the Government that the, frankly, puny changes in the planning regime that they announced will not bring forward the large-scale increase in onshore wind production in this country. Will the Government listen in time this time and put the planning regime for onshore wind on a level playing field with other renewable infrastructure?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that the noble Baroness is passionate about onshore wind. I hope the changes that we announced will produce more capacity. As I said, we have just let 24 projects under the latest CfD round. She is right that the industry said in advance of this round that it wanted to be paid more. Across all the different areas of government for which I have been responsible, I have never met a private developer who want to be paid less for what they do. Let us be realistic: this is a negotiation process. Of course, industry will say, “We need to be paid more; we need to be given larger contracts”. That is entirely understandable. We have to bear in mind our responsibility to the bill payer who ends up paying these costs. We of course want to see more renewable capacity laid out—it is intermittent but it is cheap. We need to produce a strike price that is fair to the developers, so that they get a return, but also to the bill payers.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is right that we should praise ourselves for the offshore wind farms, which I must say are most impressive. However, the interconnectors and so on lie along the seabed. Like so many other aspects of our energy supply and other things, the seabed has certain vulnerabilities. We have seen Russian ships from the main directorate of undersea research regularly in the North Sea, going along areas where these lie. Is the Minister happy that we have put enough effort into monitoring and tracking where they are all the time and then using ships, aircraft and whatever else to go and make sure that those lines are still safe?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. There are a number of such areas of critical national infrastructure, including gas-interlinking pipelines and electricity interconnector cables with other countries, as well as our interconnector cables with the offshore wind farms. These are all critical vulnerabilities and the noble Lord can be assured that we monitor these things closely. We are well aware of the possible threat presented to them.
Business of the House
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) Regulations 2023
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the Regulations laid before the House on 10 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 September.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Monday 11th September 2023
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 166-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (8 Sep 2023)
17:04 - Division on Motion E1 - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 185 - Motion E1 agreed.
17:16 - Division on Motion H1 - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 186 - Motion H1 agreed.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 23A and do propose Amendments 23B and 23C in lieu—
“12B After section 790I insert—
“Power to impose further duties
790IA Power to impose further duties involving nominee shareholders
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision for the purpose of enabling a company to which this Part applies to find out about anyone who has become or ceased to be a person who is—
(a) a registrable person in relation to the company by virtue of shares being held by a nominee, or
(b) a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company by virtue of shares being held by a nominee.
(2) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) impose obligations on a company with a view to obtaining—
(i) information about whether a person has become or ceased to be a nominee shareholder;
(ii) if they have, information about: (A) the shareholding; (B) the nominee; (C) the person for whom the nominee holds or held the shares;
(iii) any other information required by the regulations;
(b) impose obligations on others (including nominees or former nominees) with a view to providing the company with—
(i) information of a kind described in paragraph (a)(i)
or (ii);
(ii) any other information required by the regulations.
(3) The regulations may, in particular, make provision similar or corresponding to any of the preceding provisions of this Chapter.
(4) The provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (1) includes provision amending this Chapter.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.””
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Motions B, C, D and D1. I thank noble Lords for their extraordinarily high level of constructive input over the last few days as we have come to this point. I believe that together, across the House, we have created a truly powerful piece of legislation that will have a meaningful impact on how Companies House operates, how we deal with financial crime and how we make our system safer and cleaner.
I should declare my interests. I have interests in limited companies and other companies, but I do not believe there is any conflict of interest in this process today.
Motion A relates to Lords Amendment 23, tabled on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, which would require members of all UK companies to declare whether they were holding shares on behalf of, or subject to the direction of, another person or persons as a nominee and, if so, to provide details of the person or persons. We have been in conversation over the last few days about that amendment. While we understand the intention to tackle what we perceive to be an industry of nominee service providers prone to acting unlawfully, I am afraid we do not believe that the amendment is the appropriate way to achieve that goal.
However, the Government, via Motion A, have therefore tabled Amendments 23B and 23C in lieu of Commons Amendment 23A. I hope that is making sense to the noble Lord. The new amendments allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to make further provision for the purpose of enabling a company to find out who its PSCs are—that is, people of significant control—in cases where shares are held by a nominee. That could include, among other things, imposing further obligations on companies to find out if they have nominee shareholders and, if so, for whom they are holding shares, or imposing further obligations on nominee shareholders to disclose their status and for whom they are holding shares.
It is important that we make it clear that the reason for tabling the new amendments rather than accepting the noble Lord’s revised amendment is that we are slightly wary of imposing disproportionate burdens on business. There are a vast variety of nominee types which we need to make sure we have taken into account when ensuring that we are getting the right information from the right types of nominees. As I have said to the noble lord—at this Dispatch Box, I believe—the commitment in principle to try better to understand the route between the nominee and the beneficiary is an important one. We want to do it in the right way, and these amendments would give the Secretary of State the powers to do that. I hope that the noble Lord can agree that that is the right approach to take and, assuming that is so, can support the Government in this new amendment and consider withdrawing his own.
I turn to Motion B.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend the Minister. I had been told that I needed to address my Motion D1 while Motion A was under discussion. I am very happy to wait but those were the instructions I had from the Table. Would anyone like to clarify?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am told that I should continue, and we will hear from my noble friend at a later stage—which I welcome and look forward to greatly.
Motion B is a technical Motion that allows the power to modify who is able to file with Companies House on others’ behalf, to ensure it is consistent for all types of filings. I hope the House is assured that these amendments are minor but sensible modifications to the Bill.
Motion C relates to Lords Amendment 115, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, at Report. This will introduce two new duties for overseas entities, the first requiring event-driven updates on beneficial ownership information, and the second requiring overseas entities to update their records no more than 14 days before the completion of a land transaction. We believe that requiring event-driven updates for the Register of Overseas Entities will not work in principle. I would like to reassure noble Lords that we have done an enormous amount of highly collaborative work with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on this issue. We are concerned that this would create additional risk for purchasers of properties involved with overseas entities. However, as I hope I have made clear to noble Lords, we are extremely committed to working further on this subject. The Government commit to keeping under review the question of the update period for the Register of Overseas Entities. That is extremely important, and I personally commit to that on behalf of the Government. We will have more evidence at our disposal as the first set of annual updates comes through. If we felt it necessary to change the reporting requirements, and if there were not the risks that we feel may be presented by the noble Lord’s proposal, then we would look to consult on that. For that reason, we will not be supporting that amendment.
I turn to Motion D, which my noble friend Lord Agnew will then speak to. Again, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his extraordinarily high level of commitment to making sure that the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill is genuinely powerful legislation that will enable us to achieve the goals we wish to achieve. Ultimately, transparency is at the core of our ambition. However, we are concerned, in that his amendment would make information about trusts submitted to the Register of Overseas Entities publicly available by removing it from the list of material listed as unavailable for public inspection. I note that my noble friend has also tabled a further amendment.
However, it is important to come back to these points, because they are very relevant to our ambitions. We are resolute in saying that we will not unilaterally change the rules relating to these trusts, and I think Members of the House understand why. However, we have committed already to launching a full public consultation before the end of the year on how we can further improve the transparency of trust information. Following further discussion with my noble friend, I would like to make it clear that the public consultation to which we are committed is a separate exercise from the commitment to make regulations that I have discussed already. The consultation will look at the case for broader transparency regarding trusts. The Government’s ambition is to increase and improve transparency. We commit absolutely that we will undertake this consultation and that it will be launched before Christmas of this year and run for no more than 12 weeks. That is in line with discussions we had with my noble friend.
I reassure my noble friend that Ministers across departments are committed to meeting this deadline and acting swiftly on the consultation’s findings. I would be very happy to meet with my noble friend, and indeed any noble Lords, soon after the consultation closes to discuss how we can move forward at pace. We therefore oppose my noble friend’s amendment, but I hope he can take the commitments I have made today at the Dispatch Box as sufficient reassurance to persuade him to withdraw his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 23A, and do propose Amendment 23D to Lords Amendment 23 in place of the words left out by Amendment 23A—
“113C Required information about members: nominees
If a member holds 5% or more of the share capital or voting rights of the company, the required information about a member includes a statement by the individual, or where the member is a body corporate, or a firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, by an officer of that body corporate or firm, as to whether or not they are holding the shares on behalf of, or subject to the direction of, another person or persons, and if they are—
(a) where any such person is an individual, and the shares held on that person’s behalf or subject to their direction amount to 3% or more of the share capital or voting rights of the company, the information required by section 113A in relation to that individual;
(b) where any such person is a body corporate or firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, and the shares held on that person’s behalf or subject to their direction amount to 3% or more of the share capital or voting rights of the company, the information required by section 113B in relation to that body corporate or firm; or
(c) a statement that the member is not holding shares on behalf of, or subject to the direction of, such person that amount to 3% or more of the share capital or voting rights of the company.””
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I hope that Motion A1 is clear. Before I start, I remind the House of my interest as a non-practising chartered accountant.
On Report, your Lordships agreed Amendment 23, which included a requirement that shareholders should have to state whether they are holding shares on someone else’s behalf and, if so, on whose behalf they are holding them. This requirement was rejected, as we have heard, by the other place. Motion A1 aims to reverse that, while trying to take on board some of the matters raised in debate in the other place. If I may, given that the debate we had in this House was now some months ago, I will briefly remind the House of the issue that that amendment was trying to resolve.
One of the easiest ways to hide the true identity of an owner of a company is to use a nominee—somebody whose name will appear on the register of members but who is in fact acting under the instruction of and for the benefit of the actual beneficial owner. A substantial industry has grown up to provide these nominee services. There are of course legitimate reasons for using a nominee, such as an asset manager holding and managing a range of shareholdings, but it is quite revealing to do a Google search of nominee shareholding services.
A near-endless list of such services appears, and these services are usually sold very clearly as being primarily about creating anonymity for the true shareholder. Let me quote from one of them:
“The beneficial owner may choose to appoint a Nominee Shareholder because they do not want to register the shares in their own name. A Nominee Shareholder is a great way to keep shareholder information away from public records”.
Another one states:
“In the United Kingdom, the purpose of using nominees is confidentiality. Because of the confidentiality requirements, owners are reluctant to associate themselves with beneficial ownership, and the practice of nominating shareholders will hide their association”.
Most nominee service providers market their services in the same vein. A few of them refer to the PSC—persons with significant control—rules or to anti-money laundering in the marketing literature, but they are very much in the minority. As I said, there are legitimate reasons for holding shares through a nominee, but not wanting to register the shares in their own name and keeping shareholder information away from public records are not legitimate reasons. In fact, that is precisely what this Bill is trying to stop.
The amendment originally passed by this House was intended to strengthen the Bill to prevent the misuse of nominees to hide the true ownership. I continue to believe that this is a very real issue and, as a result, I have tabled Motion Al, which tries to reintroduce the original amendment, but changed to reflect some of the reasons for rejecting it made in the other place—in particular, the question of undue burden that the Minister referred to a moment ago.
However, since I tabled my Motion A1, I am very pleased to say that the Government has tabled Amendment 23C within their Motion A. It shows that they now recognise that there is a genuine issue here and, in particular, that the enabling industry needs to be incentivised to clean up its act. I especially welcome the fact that proposed new subsection (2)(b) will specifically allow the Government to impose obligations directly on those who act as nominees. The real flaw in the current rules is that those enablers face no real risk at all when acting as they do. I hope that this specific mention in the Government’s Amendment 23C will cause the nominee industry to take note and clean up its act, in the knowledge that if it does not, it will face regulation.
While I would have preferred to have taken action now and introduced something in the Bill, the fact that the Government recognise the issue and are proposing a regulating power to deal with it is most welcome. I very much welcome the commitments made by the Minister a moment ago. I thank him and, given that and what he has just said, I will not press Motion A1. I thank him and his officials for their continuing very constructive engagement, which has been the case throughout the Bill. I look forward to seeing the proposed regulations before too long—he will know that I will not be dropping the issue until we see the regulations.
I shall also comment very briefly on Motion C, which moves an amendment passed in this House that aimed to fix an anomaly in the register of overseas entities, which is that it has to be updated only annually. First, I point out the reason given by the Commons:
“Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason”.
That, frankly, is totally inadequate and nonsensical in this case. It has to be updated only annually. Other registers, such as the register of persons with significant control, have to be updated within 14 days of any change being identified. This anomaly means that the register of overseas entities can be up to a year out of date at any time. That introduces the risk that an innocent part might unknowingly find themselves entering into a transaction with a sanctioned person, for example.
Unfortunately, because of the way the register works in conjunction with the registration of property, this all becomes extremely complex. I thank the Law Society for its helpful and constructive engagement in many meetings over the Recess to try to find a solution to this. While we did find a possible way through, it was so convoluted as to be impractical—so I am not going to oppose the removal of this amendment, even if the issue it was trying to solve remains real.
The register of overseas entities is still in its early stage. While it has been successful up to a point, as I am sure we are going to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, there are still many properties the ownership of which is, at best, unclear. I am very pleased to hear the commitment the Minister made in his speech just now that they will keep this anomaly of annual updating under review. In the meantime, I caution any person who is buying or selling property from or to an overseas entity, or who is entering into a lease over a property with an overseas entity, to require it to be a condition of the transaction that the entity’s entry in the register is updated immediately prior to the transaction completing. Only by doing that can the innocent party know who they are actually transacting with. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of my Motion D. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his ongoing dialogue with me as we grind to the end of this Bill: he has been patient and courteous, as ever. My problem is that the Government continue to say one thing and then do something different. Just to remind noble Lords, the reason I pressed my original amendment was that a gaping hole had opened up in this newly created register of overseas interests. It is barely a year old and we have more than 50,000 properties owned by an entity whose beneficial owners are withheld from public view. That is approaching one-third of all entries. It is rapidly becoming the default advice from cute law firms to their overseas clients to use a trust structure that is opaque.
In rejecting my original Commons amendment, the Government claimed refuge behind the principle of financial privilege. This is bizarre, if not worse, but in a spirit of collaboration I will not use the word that I had planned to use. The costs to Companies House of publishing trust information are estimated on the back of an illusory envelope at between £600,000 and £2.8 million—a figure supported by absolutely no methodology—but under the Bill, Companies House funding is going to rise exponentially. The current filing fee of £13 will rise to anywhere between £60 and £90 if the guidance we have been given is followed. Taking the bottom-end number, £60 means an increase of £47 a year times 4 million companies, or £188 million a year, against this odd figure of £600,000 to £2.8 million. Even if the higher filing fees deterred some company creation or dissolution for non-viable entities, the additional cost, frankly, is a rounding error. Indeed, if the Government were to approach this logically and calculated that as a transparency cost, it would be around about 70p per registered company per year, or about 1.25%.
I give this example only because I continually worry that I get very clear assurances from the Minister but the actions taken by the Government are rather different. I accept through gritted teeth that we cannot debate that amendment as I was blocked from tabling it. This leaves us with a much watered-down proposal to try to hold the Government to account to get on with the consultation they say they need to ensure that there are no legal challenges. The Government have accepted that they need to start straightaway, in this calendar year, but they do not yet accept the principle of my proposed new subsection (2) that the consultation includes the principle of public access to protected data on a bulk basis.
This sounds arcane, but it is crucial because currently HMRC is not providing the information when requested, and it can be requested only on a case-by-case basis. As I have shown, there are already more than 50,000 hidden owners where the public are being denied the information, so doing it individually is simply not practical. I have consistently said that those with a bona fide need for confidentiality should have it, but this would be a very small proportion of the 50,000.
On the terms of the consultation, there are a couple of elephant traps that the Government should be aware of. A few years ago, when the consultation was issued to tighten up the non-dom loopholes, the lawyers’ excuse for not tightening them up was that anyone who declared non-dom status should have a reasonable expectation that it should last in perpetuity. That sounds pretty sinister to me, but apparently that argument has already been rolled out to civil servants on the issue of more transparency with trusts. I warn the Minister to be alert because, as I understand it, civil servants have already expressed their compliance with this idea. I hope that we as politicians are still running the country, not the civil servants.
We have heard from my noble friend the Minister and he has given commitments, which I very much appreciate. However, I hope he understands why I am extremely nervous: what he says and what the Government do are not always totally aligned. I will take his words exactly as he says them, though, and I ask him to keep a very careful eye on this process over the next few months. I think he has learned enough about me to know that, for all my many weaknesses, one thing I am is dogged. We will keep a careful eye on this. On that basis, I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. I do this as a former chair of the Jersey Financial Services Commission. In Jersey we made a major effort to increase the transparency of trust information so that beneficial ownership could be accurately identified. One of the inhibitions for cleaning up, if you like, the register in Jersey was the behaviour of the Government in the United Kingdom, and their persistent obfuscation of the way in which trusts were to be treated.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, contains exactly the process that needs to be dealt with in a consultation. I understand the assurances he may have received and that he may feel it appropriate to withdraw his amendment, but I hope he proves as dogged as we know him to be in pursuing this. I assure him of my continuing support.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, has said and done. I am very sorry that the Government did not accept the amendment in relation to trusts. It was entirely in keeping with the purpose of the Bill, and more specifically with the purpose of the introduction of the register of overseas entities.
Some of us have been advancing the cause of this register—some would say banging on about it—for some considerable time. I had the privilege of chairing the Joint Committee on a draft Bill. We recommended legislation as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it took the invasion of Ukraine for the Government to incorporate the necessary legislation into the last economic crime Bill.
During the taking of evidence by the committee in 2019, the need to avoid trusts being used to avoid the identification of the true owner of property was specifically brought to our attention. It then became part of our recommendations that the legislation, when it came before your Lordships’ House, should cater for this obvious loophole. The Government ignored the recommendation then and have now resisted the amendment passed by your Lordships’ House.
If there is concern about minors and keeping them ignorant about their status as beneficiaries, this could have been catered for by an appropriate provision. Instead, the Government, against whom the former Lord Chancellor voted in the other place on this issue, have resorted to “financial privilege” as a means of blocking the amendment.
Trust lawyers are going to be very busy, as foreign owners will set about frustrating the purpose of the register and the aspirations that we all share for this and related legislation. I hope the Government bear that in mind.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I had the privilege of being a member of the noble Lord’s committee. I agreed with what he had to say then, and I agree with what he has just said now.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in his opening dispatch the Minister praised those involved for the way in which the Bill has been modified and changed. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, needs to take a lot of credit for how that modification has gone ahead, and the work that he has done and will have to continue to do in his role overseeing the Government’s response to this. I will not repeat anything that has already been said, other than to say that I agree.
The reason we are concerned about this issue is that the Government will rightfully say that they know who the names are in these trusts, but the issue we are talking about is the publication. It has been the role of civil society and journalists to uncover problems, and that has been very important in issues around this. If the Government can demonstrate that their commitment to enforcement, getting behind these trusts and exposing people who are using them to avoid issues is fully funded and fully backed by them, our relying on civil society—which we have had to do to date—would be less of an issue. That is why we support the quest by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, on this, and will support him as he seeks to make sure that further steps are appropriate and that enforcement is at the heart of what we seek to achieve here.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for the broader tidying up of the amendments in this group and by reflecting on the time, over several months, that we have been discussing these important issues. We must keep our eye on the scale of the issues that we are dealing with; they are immense, and they cost this country billions of pounds. We have a great deal to do to repair the UK’s reputation in the world, and I hope that we involved in this debate will all have our eyes on that prize.
I am pleased to say that we have seen some positive changes achieved through the passage of this Bill and a genuine appetite for change, as we experienced with our conversation with Companies House. We are going through an immense cultural change in the management of these affairs. As we know, it is the biggest shake-up for 170 years. I also pay tribute to everyone in the Chamber, and those who are not here today, for their diligence in the work that they have done, and to my colleagues in the other place, Dame Margaret Hodge and Seema Malhotra in particular. Months and months of work have gone into getting us to this place.
I am very grateful for the explanation that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, gave. There is real recognition that there will be an ongoing need to scrutinise. I think we all accept the commitments in good faith, but we need to make it clear to Ministers and their officials that the interest is very live and that there will be close scrutiny as these matters roll up. Compromise has been reached on this—I accept that that is the reason we will not be taking the amendment to a vote—but we add our support to the ongoing scrutiny that will need to take place.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for his persistence in this and his unique position having had experience in government, which has informed the approach he has taken and the concern that I think many would agree he has rightly raised. We are where we are—he has decided to accept the reassurances—but we also have an insight into those elephant traps that he referred to. I also reference the comments of my noble friend Lord Eatwell on the explicit need for vigilance.
With those comments, and thanking everyone for the spirit of compromise, I reassure everyone that we will look closely at this, and we very much hope that the measures being brought in today will be sufficient. We will look to those delegated powers that have been built in to make sure that, if change is necessary, it will indeed be made.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for her extremely helpful and supportive comments about the overall debate. In her summation, she was right that we have, through a great degree of good faith among us all, come up with a very strong series of actions that will genuinely change the economic landscape in this country for the better.
I have had the privilege of working with my noble friend Lord Agnew for a number of months as we have come to today’s conclusion on these measures. I reiterate my personal commitment, and the commitment of this Government, to delivering on the thrust of his ambitions. On a process that came to light only recently—the issue of bulk data and its accessibility—I can commit that Companies House will do a review of how it can assess bulk data for the trusts’ information on the register of overseas entities once a consultation period has finished and it is deemed appropriate.
Ultimately, we are committed to greater transparency, and I am very grateful to my noble friend and noble Lords across the House for their understanding of our approach to how we can best achieve this without either endangering vulnerable minors or individuals or opening ourselves up to legal challenge which could derail many of the main principles of this part the Bill to which my noble friend is rightly keen to contribute.
Finally, I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who, from the very beginning, has been a tireless collaborator in creating—with his input across the board in this section of the Bill—a truly powerful piece of legislation. It was my own personal pleasure and pride to work with him as we have come to this conclusion, and I am very grateful to him for his understanding, again, of how we believe that we can achieve our shared ambitions in what we think will be the right way.
We have made some clear further commitments today—to which I would be delighted to be held to account by my noble friend Lord Agnew and all noble Lords in the House today—to make the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill the most effective legislation it can be. I therefore invite the House to agree the government Motions in this group.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his generous comments. I also thank noble Lords who have been so generous with their support throughout the passage of the Bill on these matters, which has allowed us to get to the point of achieving at least this compromise. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 56 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 56A, 56B and 56C in lieu.
“Who may deliver documents to the registrar
1067A Delivery of documents: identity verification requirements etc
(1) An individual may not deliver a document to the registrar on their own behalf unless—
(a) their identity is verified (see section 1110A), and
(b) the document is accompanied by a statement to that effect.
(2) An individual (A) may not deliver a document to the registrar on behalf of another person (B) who is of a description specified in column 1 of the following table unless—
(a) the individual is of a description specified in the corresponding entry in column 2, and
(b) the document is accompanied by the statement specified in the corresponding entry in column 3.
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Description of person on whose behalf document delivered (B) | Description of individual who may deliver document on B’s behalf (A) | Accompanying statement | |
1 | Firm | Individual who is an officer or employee of the firm and whose identity is verified (see section 1110A). | Statement by A— (a) that A is an officer or employee of the firm, (b) that A is delivering the document on the firm’s behalf, and (c) that A’s identity is verified. |
2 | Firm | Individual who is an officer or employee of a corporate officer of the firm and whose identity is verified. | Statement by A— (a) that A is an officer or employee of a corporate officer of the firm, (b) that A is delivering the document on the firm’s behalf, and (c) that A’s identity is verified. |
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Description of person on whose behalf document delivered (B) | Description of individual who may deliver document on B’s behalf (A) | Accompanying statement | |
3 | Firm | Individual who is an authorised corporate service provider (see section 1098A). | Statement by A— (a) that A is an authorised corporate service provider, and (b) that A is delivering the document on the firm’s behalf. |
4 | Firm | Individual who is an officer or employee of an authorised corporate service provider. | Statement by A— (a) that A is an officer or employee of an authorised corporate service provider, and (b) that A is delivering the document on the firm’s behalf. |
5 | Individual | Individual whose identity is verified. | Statement by A— (a) that A is delivering the document on B’s behalf, and (b) that A’s identity is verified. |
6 | Individual | Individual who is an authorised corporate service provider. | Statement by A— (a) that A is an authorised corporate service provider, and (b) that A is delivering the document on B’s behalf. |
7 | Individual | Individual who is an officer or employee of an authorised corporate service provider. | Statement by A— (a) that A is an officer or employee of an authorised corporate service provider, and (b) that A is delivering the document on B’s behalf. |
(a) an individual who is an officer of one of those corporate officers, or
(b) if the officers of those corporate officers are all corporate officers, an individual who is an officer of any of the corporate officers’ corporate officers,
and so on until there is at least one individual who is an officer.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) create exceptions to subsections (1) or (2) (which may be framed by reference to the person by whom or on whose behalf a document is delivered or by reference to descriptions of document or in any other way);
(b) amend this section for the purpose of changing the effect of the table in subsection (2).
(5) Regulations under subsection (4)(a)—
(a) may require any document delivered to the registrar in reliance on an exception to be accompanied by a statement; (b) may amend this section.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a statement delivered to the registrar under subsection (2) to be accompanied by additional statements or additional information in connection with the subject-matter of the statement.
(7) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
(8) In this section “corporate officer” means an officer that is not an individual.””
“(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section for the purposes of changing who may deliver a document to the registrar on behalf of a disqualified person.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
(a) amend this section for the purposes of changing who may deliver a document under a provision listed in subsection (4) to the registrar on behalf of another person;
(b) ”
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 115, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 115A.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 117, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 117A.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 151A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Motions F, G, H and H1. We cannot agree to the proposed amendments for practical reasons, not least that the burdens they would place on business would not just be justified. It is for this reason, and not because of any intransigence or party-political reason, that we are unable to agree with the proposed Lords amendments. I will now talk specifically to the Motions in this group.
Motion E would reinsert the SME exemption for the failure to prevent fraud offence. I have of course noted Motion E1, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. I appreciate that he has moved closer to the Government’s position on this issue, creating his own threshold that would exclude microentities from the failure to prevent fraud offence. However, the Government remain extremely mindful of the pressures on companies of all sizes, including small and medium-sized enterprises, and therefore do not feel it is appropriate to place this new, unnecessary burden on more than 450,000 of them.
The analysis on this issue remains clear: even reducing the exemption threshold to only microentities would increase the one-off costs on businesses from around £500 million to £1.5 billion. Further, the annually recurrent costs would increase from £60 million to more than £192 million. Those costs would still be disproportionately shared by small business owners.
I know some noble Lords have expressed scepticism about the burdens, but the fact is that when a small business person hears that they may be liable to a new offence and significant fines if they are judged not to have taken action on something, they will worry. They will take time out of their business to scrutinise the guidance and, whatever it may say, there could be widespread overcompliance. Furthermore, they may well have to pay their accountant or lawyer to do it for them. While this burden is eye-watering in its own right, the issue cannot be taken in isolation. We must be aware of the cumulative compliance costs for SMEs across multiple government requirements or regulations. Furthermore, I can assure noble Lords that 50% of economic activity would be covered by the organisations in scope of this new offence with the Government’s threshold in place. It is of course already easier for law enforcement to attribute and prosecute fraud more easily in the smaller organisations that fall below the threshold.
I hope that noble Lords who feel strongly on this issue will be reassured that this is not the end of the debate. The Government have future-proofed the legislation by including a delegated power to allow them to raise, lower or remove the threshold altogether. Of course, as with all legislation, the Government will keep the threshold under review and will make changes if there is evidence to suggest that they are required. I therefore urge noble Lords to support government Motion E, rather than Motion E1.
I now turn to government Motion G, which disagrees with Lords Amendment 158. This was also tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and seeks to introduce a failure to prevent money laundering offence. I am pleased that no amending Motions have been tabled for today, as I fear this amendment is entirely duplicative of existing regulations. Much like my noble and learned friend’s other amendment, it would therefore impose yet further unnecessary burdens on UK businesses. The UK already has a strong anti-money laundering regime in the form of the money laundering regulations, which require regulated sectors to implement a comprehensive set of measures to prevent money laundering. Corporations and individuals can face serious penalties, ranging from fines to cancellation of registration and criminal prosecution, if they fail to take those measures. What is more, those penalties will apply even if no actual money laundering has occurred. No knowledge of or intention to commit an offence has to be proved.
The money laundering regulations and the money laundering offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act are directly linked and can be seen as part of the same regime. A failure to prevent money laundering offence would therefore be highly duplicative of the existing regime. This is not just the view of the Government: in our conversations with industry, it has been very clear that duplication would create a serious level of confusion and unnecessary burdens on businesses. We should support legitimate businesses, rather than hamper them with overlapping regimes. I therefore hope that noble Lords will agree with the government Motion to disagree with the amendment from Report.
Lord Garnier
Leave out from leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 151A and do propose Amendments 151B and 151C in lieu—
“Section (Failure to prevent fraud): non-micro organisations
For the purposes of section (Failure to prevent fraud)(1) a relevant body is a “non-micro organisation” only if the body satisfied two or more of the following conditions in the financial year of the body (“year P”) that precedes the year of the fraud offence—
Turnover | More than £632,000 and less than £36 million |
Balance sheet total | More than £316,000 and less than £18 million |
Number of employees | More than 10 and less than 250. |
(3) In subsection (1) the “number of employees” means the average number of persons employed by the relevant body in year P, determined as follows—
(a) find for each month in year P the number of persons employed under contracts of service by the relevant body in that month
(whether throughout the month or not),
(b) add together the monthly totals, and (c) divide by the number of months in year P.
(4) In this section—
“balance sheet total”, in relation to a relevant body and a financial year—
(a) means the aggregate of the amounts shown as assets in its balance sheet at the end of the financial year, or
(b) where the body has no balance sheet for the financial year, has a corresponding meaning;
“turnover”—
(a) in relation to a UK company, has the same meaning as in Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 (see section 474 of that Act);
(b) in relation to any other relevant body, has a corresponding meaning;
“year of the fraud offence” is to be interpreted in accordance with section (Failure to prevent fraud)(1).
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify this section (other than this subsection and subsections (6) and (8)) for the purpose of altering the meaning of “non-micro organisation” in section (Failure to prevent fraud)(1).
(6) The Secretary of State may (whether or not the power in subsection (5) has been exercised) by regulations—
(a) omit the words “which is a non-micro organisation or” in section (Failure to prevent fraud)(1), and
(b) make any modifications of this section (other than this subsection) that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in consequence of provision made under quotegraph (a).
(7) Before making regulations under subsection (5) or (6) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
(8) Regulations under subsection (5) or (6) may make consequential amendments of section (Failure to prevent fraud: minor definitions).””
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I begin by referring to my interest as a barrister in private practice and informing the House that that practice includes economic and corporate crime.
I wish to acknowledge the genuine attempts of my noble friends on the Front Bench to understand my concerns, expressed over a good many years and, more particularly, during the passage of this Bill, not only in this Chamber and in Grand Committee but in meetings with them and their officials, most recently on Friday. My noble friend Lord Sharpe has had to bear the brunt of my concerns, but he has never dissembled nor lost his sense of humour, even when listening to my jokes. It is regrettable that he has not been permitted any discretion by Ministers in the other place and has had to stick to his instructions on a matter that has nothing to do with party politics or manifesto commitments.
I know that your Lordships are interested only in creating good, coherent and comprehensible criminal law that meets the needs of the modern economy and is in line with public opinion and morality. Thanks to the support of your Lordships’ House—I am grateful to noble Lords of all parties and none—the Bill we are dealing with was altered on Report to delete the SME exemption from the failure to prevent fraud offences regime, while money laundering was added to the failure to prevent regime introduced by the Government; by that, I mean the substantive money laundering offences under Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, not to be confused with the due diligence requirements under the more recent money laundering regulations.
Last Monday, despite the powerful arguments of my right honourable and learned friends Sir Jeremy Wright and Sir Robert Buckland, the other place refused to extend the proposed new offence of failure to prevent fraud to 99.5% of the corporate economy and deleted money laundering from the failure to prevent regime. Having won the Division in the other place last week, the Government now seek to sustain that position in your Lordships’ House today. I accept that democratic politics is as much about arithmetic as it is about sound arguments; if a majority prefers to do something unsatisfactory, whether or not it has listened to the arguments and the evidence in support of them, that is what will happen. Even as they stand, these limited proposals are well overdue and have been in the making since 2010.
In the spirit of compromise, those of us who voted for the extension of failure to prevent to money laundering on Report have agreed not to press the money laundering extension today. We happen to think that it should be extended to money laundering—I happen to think also that there are other substantive offences, such as those listed in the deferred prosecution agreements schedule to the Crime and Courts Act 2013, that could be included—but, on the basis that the best is often the enemy of the good, and in an attempt to meet the Government a lot more than half way down the road, we will not take that matter further on this occasion. However, I invite the Government and the other place to reconsider the SME exemption, subject to a further concession to exempt micro-businesses; I hope that this will allay the fear, albeit unfounded, that extending the failure to prevent regime further than the Bill currently permits will stifle small businesses. Absent any agreement from my noble friend the Minister, I will seek leave to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.
On Report, I spoke in support of a number of amendments or proposed new clauses to the Bill—a Bill which has much to recommend it, even if it has been slow to arrive. The defects that I intended to correct related to the failure to prevent regime. No one needs reminding of this but that regime is not a new provision stealthily added to the criminal law in the past few months by an eccentric Back-Bench Peer. It was first introduced into our criminal law with cross-party support—indeed, without a vote—via the Bribery Act 2010, which began its passage through Parliament under Gordon Brown’s Labour Government and was enacted under David Cameron’s coalition Government. Failure to prevent bribery under Section 7 of the 2010 Act, supported by all three major parties, as well as the Cross Benches and others, is now a tried and tested criminal offence, with an easily understood and practical defence for companies and partnerships that I and many other practitioners have not found difficult to advise on or to apply in particular cases, whether we have been acting for the Serious Fraud Office or for defendant companies.
The objective of the 2010 Act was and is not to bring the full force of the criminal law to bear on well-run commercial organisations that experience an isolated incident of bribery on their behalf. Therefore, to achieve an appropriate balance, Section 7 provides a full defence. This is in recognition of the fact that no bribery prevention scheme will be capable of always preventing bribery. However, the defence was also included to encourage commercial organisations to put procedures in place to prevent bribery by persons associated with them. The failure to prevent bribery offence is in addition to, and does not displace, liability that might arise under Sections 1 and 6 of the Act for direct bribery here or of a foreign public official where the commercial organisation itself commits an offence.
That was well understood as the Act progressed through Parliament and I hope it is well understood now. So too are the special nature and parameters of the statutory defence of “adequate procedures”. Note that the defence requires “adequate procedures”, not perfect procedures. There is no practical difference between “adequate procedures” in the 2010 Act and “reasonable procedures” in the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and in this Bill. The law requires no more than a proportionate approach to the facts relevant to the company or partnership in question.
The alarmist suggestion that a failure to prevent fraud offences regime that does not include SMEs—that is, it does not exempt 99.5% of companies and partnerships—will impose unbearable cost burdens running into multiple billions of pounds on those organisations is absurd. There will be some cost but since the guidance under the 2010 Act has been available since 2011, it is well understood and can easily be adapted to the failure to prevent offences under this Bill. The Bribery Act guidance will easily translate to fraud offences and the sooner it is published, the better. The best estimates are that SME companies will need to spend between £2,000 and £4,000 to prepare themselves and some will need to spend nothing because of their low risk profile. These costs are a legitimate business expense but, to put this in proportion, Lesley O’Brien, a director of Freightlink Europe, said in June 2022 that it costs £20,000 per year to run one heavy-goods vehicle. No sensibly run business should be trading abroad without taking proportionate precautionary steps to avoid the risk of bribery or fraud committed by its associates.
In the guidance to the 2010 Act, published in 2011 by my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, the then Justice Secretary, he explained that “procedures” is used to embrace bribery prevention policies and the procedures that implement them. Policies articulate a commercial organisation’s anti-bribery stance, show how it will be maintained and help create an anti-bribery culture. They are therefore a necessary measure in the prevention of bribery but they will not achieve that objective unless they are properly implemented. Adequate bribery prevention procedures, I repeat, ought to be proportionate to the bribery risks that the organisation faces. The same applies to the prevention of fraud offences and, where the guidance refers to “bribery”, one could in the context of this Bill substitute “fraud”.
The guidance says:
“To a certain extent the level of risk will be linked to the size of the organisation and the nature and complexity of its business, but size will not be the only determining factor. Some small organisations can face quite significant risks, and will need more extensive procedures than their counterparts facing limited risks. However, small organisations are unlikely to need procedures that are as extensive as those of a large multi-national organisation. For example, a very small business may be able to rely heavily on periodic oral briefings to communicate its policies while a large one may need to rely on extensive written communication … The level of risk that organisations face will also vary with the type and nature of the persons associated with it. For example, a commercial organisation that properly assesses that there is no risk of bribery”—
substitute “fraud”—
“on the part of one of its associated persons will, accordingly, require nothing in the way of procedures to prevent bribery”—
substitute “fraud”—
“in the context of that relationship. By the same token the bribery”—
substitute “fraud”—
“risks associated with reliance on a third party agent representing a commercial organisation in negotiations with foreign public officials may be assessed as significant and accordingly require much more in the way of procedures to mitigate those risks. Organisations are likely to need to select procedures to cover a broad range of risks but any consideration by a court in an individual case of the adequacy or reasonableness of procedures is necessarily likely to focus on those procedures designed to prevent bribery or fraud on the part of the associated person committing the offence in question”.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will take this opportunity to speak to my Motion H1 in the same group, which proposes, as an amendment to Motion H, to
“leave out from ‘161’ to end and insert ‘, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 161A in lieu, and do propose”
the amendment listed at page 24 of the Marshalled List.
However, I should explain that there is a mistake in this amendment, which is no doubt my fault. There were various communications between me and the Public Bill Office on Friday afternoon, in order to get the amendment in the appropriate shape, and a “not” features in the wrong place. I will explain where the omission is and why I submit that it does not ultimately matter.
The intention behind this amendment, under “Civil recovery: costs of proceedings”, was to try to give some protection to the agencies in the case of adverse costs orders made against them. This amendment was passed by your Lordships’ House; it went back to the House of Commons last Monday and was rejected.
My amendment is a softening of the original amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and me—softening because it had to be softened somewhat to comply with the rules. Proposed new subsection (2) should read:
“The court should not normally make an order that any costs of proceedings relating to a case to which this section applies … are payable by an enforcement authority to a respondent or a specified responsible officer in respect of the involvement of the respondent or the officer in those proceedings, unless it would be in the interests of justice”.
So the “not” should be inserted earlier and removed later on.
The amendment that was drawn to my attention today did not entirely reflect my intention. I have been in communication with the Public Bill Office as to whether it was possible to amend it. Although it is possible to table a manuscript amendment—see paragraph 8.172 of the Companion—it is inelegant and I am told that the better course is to explain the purpose of the amendment. Were the House to be in favour of the amendment, the matter can be amended at the House of Commons stage. That appears to be the position.
Now perhaps I can come on to the merits, as I see them, of the amendment. The Minister says that my amendment—which is really not much more than a nudge; it does not compel the court to do anything in relation to costs—is intended to prevent any disincentive being provided to the agencies, who may seek to recover the proceeds of crime, often against very well-resourced defendants. Unexplained wealth orders, brought in by the Criminal Finances Act, were to be a powerful weapon in seeking to obtain recovery, ultimately, from those whose wealth was not easily explicable. The agency tried on one occasion to do that and was unable to surmount the hurdle the court said was appropriate in these cases—and, indeed, which Parliament said was appropriate. The result was an order of £1.5 million-worth of costs against the agency.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has not been great enthusiasm to take up unexplained wealth orders on the part of the Serious Fraud Office. So your Lordships’ House, during the last economic crime Bill proceedings, very sensibly produced an amendment that, broadly speaking, reflected the amendment we are now discussing in relation to unexplained wealth orders, so as not to provide such a disincentive to the authorities seeking to obtain one of these orders. The rationale behind my amendment is precisely the same. The Minister says that this offends the “loser pays” principle. He is right that the starting point in most civil cases is that the loser pays—for very good reason. If A brings a claim against B that proves to be unjustified, and B has been put to expense thereby, why should B not recover his or her or its costs from A?
However, that rule is subject to many exceptions, as all those who are familiar with the law will know. For example, on some occasions the court orders each side to bear its own costs, having regard to the facts. Sometimes there will be no orders as to costs; sometimes there will be issue-based costs. There will be a variety of different orders to meet the justice of a particular case. Sometimes Parliament even specifically weights the cost in one particular direction. An egregious example is Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which is a controversial issue but shows that Parliament is perfectly capable of deciding who should pay the costs in particular circumstances.
What will happen if this particular provision becomes part of our law? I suggest what will happen is that a judge looking at the end of a case will see that Parliament has decided that normally there should not be an order that the agency pays the costs. However, if the agency quite unreasonably, without proper evidence, seeks to pursue somebody for the proceeds of crime, there is of course the saving provision—“in the interests of justice”—which is part of our amendment. So a court is perfectly able, as it will always do, to look at the particular circumstances of the case and decide that, in this case, the agency has been inappropriately pursuing somebody, seeking a remedy when they should not have done. But this is a nudge towards the judge, and a very qualified exception to the “loser pays” principle.
It is, however, an important amendment. Those giving evidence towards the Bill Committee included Bill Browder, who may be well known to your Lordships for his particularly vigorous pursuit of justice in this particular area, and representatives of the Serious Fraud Office. I would be interested to know from the Minister what the approach of the agencies is to this. If he tells me firmly that they do not want this power, that is of course a powerful argument. It would be somewhat at odds with the evidence and the information I have, but I do not have a complete and total understanding of what their approach should be.
It seems to me that someone running the Serious Fraud Office or the NCA, when deciding whether or not to pursue somebody, would bear very much in mind their budget and the cost consequences of taking a particular course of action. If they knew that there was a degree of protection—and that is all this is, a degree of protection—provided in this, it would act as much less of a disincentive. If they thought that, should they fail to recover what they thought they were entitled to, there would be a very heavy hit on their budget, it might mean that they would not do so, which might be contrary to the interests of justice.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Faulks on this amendment. I am particularly grateful to him; I was involved in the earlier amendments, but I realised that it needed a premier division lawyer rather than a second division entrepreneur to get this through.
In our discussion with Ministers, we were often told that the enforcement agencies did not want this; that seemed disingenuous to me. I now have some information. For example, law enforcement agents have shown a strong appetite for cost protection and civil recovery. The chief capability officer of the Serious Fraud Office told the economic crime Bill committee that the SFO would like to see this, while the head of the National Economic Crime Centre told the same committee that they found cost protection “an attractive proposal”. I do not think that is a searing insight. Spotlight on Corruption has identified 60 high-risk cases, with the potential of £1 billion of frozen assets, and the chilling effect is palpable among them.
I respectfully disagree with the Government on this. I am grateful to my noble friends the Ministers who have spoken several times to all of us, but I think they are on the wrong side of logic.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have some very real concerns about the impacts of the new failure to prevent offence on small and medium-sized entities. If my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s Motion E1 is agreed to, I think it could be very significant. I believe that the other place was wise to restrict the offence to larger companies only. Setting the threshold at the micro-entity level would still leave very many small and medium-sized entities within the scope of the offence.
I did try to find out how many companies would be affected. My noble friend the Minister said 450,000 companies would be brought within the net of the offence. According to Companies House statistics, around 3.1 million active companies filed accounts last year. Of those, 1.6 million were for micro-entities, and would therefore be excluded, but 1.4 million were for small companies that took advantage of the audit exemption. That, very broadly, is the group of companies that would benefit from the changes made by the other place; it is obviously rather more than 450,000. Whatever the number, there will certainly be regulatory costs for those companies, whether 450,000 or 1.4 million. My noble friend the Minister has given his estimate of what those costs will be. I have never placed much faith in estimates made by Governments of the direct costs of regulatory burdens that Governments try to impose. I generally put a multiplier against them to arrive at a more realistic figure.
However, I believe the most important cost is the opportunity cost that is imposed by regulation. Every time a new regulation is imposed, the people who run small businesses have to spend time away from thinking about their core activities, which should be wealth-generating. Every moment spent thinking about whether they have reasonable prevention procedures in place, or implementing those procedures, is a moment spent not thinking about how to grow the business or how to make it more profitable. Large companies have specialists to cope with all this. Small businesses often have no one beyond the proprietor of the business itself, but they are the very people who are supposed to be spending their time growing their businesses, thereby helping the UK economy to grow—and my goodness me, do not we need growth in our economy?
The cumulative effect of incremental regulation on individual businesses is huge, as any small businessman will tell you, but the cumulative opportunity cost for those businesses of missing out on that growth, and the impact that will have on UK plc, simply cannot be ignored when we are looking at any form of legislation that imposes burdens on businesses. I urge noble Lords to accept the pragmatic solution that the other place has put forward.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am greatly assisted by the correction made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks; I had great difficulty in understanding the amendment on first reading. Now that he has corrected it, I would like to say from the point of view of a Scots lawyer that there is nothing startling in the proposition that is made. We in Scotland are quite used to the normal routine that law enforcement agencies are not liable in costs for the proceedings that have been taken, probably for the reasons that the noble Lord has clearly expressed.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we have benefited from two extremely detailed and learned speeches proposing Motions E1 and H1. On Motion E1, I am exercised by the idea that there is an opportunity cost in checking whether you are preventing or causing fraud. That seems to be a strange discussion. The analogy made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, with HSE and health and safety, is a good one: yes, it is a cost to make sure that you are doing something safely but it is a much wider benefit. The notion that 95% to 98% of the business community should be allowed not to consider their impact on fraud because that would get in the way of their growth is strange, because that growth would then be predicated on very shaky circumstances. I am not persuaded by the counterarguments, but I have been persuaded strongly by the noble and learned Lord.
Similarly, on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, causing agencies to be too tentative and restricted in how they go about prosecuting people is an important issue. It is clear from what we have heard from the outside world that this gets in the way of prosecutions. It also causes the prosecuting authorities to go for low-hanging fruit—that is, easier propositions—and avoid harder and often more severe prosecutions. That is a chilling effect which we should be worrying about when we look at this issue.
These two important amendments have been trimmed in the light of the rejection of the last set by the House of Commons. Noble Lords and Baronesses on these Benches will be happy to support them, if and when they are moved to a vote.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we have been pleased to support the legislation, which overall we think is very good, and we have said that to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Indeed, the Government have listened, as have all the Ministers on the Bill, and made significant changes. Now we are left with just two amendments, put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, which deal with two issues that remain outstanding but are of significant importance and deserve our support and consideration.
I want to reference one or two points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, because he made them particularly well. It is a proportionate and reasonable amendment to ask of the Government. There are all sorts of regulations and legislation—the noble and learned Lord referenced them—to which we say small businesses should be subject to, because we believe that it is the right thing to do and the right climate in which those businesses should operate. When it comes to the failure to prevent, the Government point out that 50% are covered by their legislation, which of course leaves 50% that are not.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, many of us have sought to ensure that the failure to prevent—which is a good step forward—applies, as far as possible, to as many businesses as it possibly can. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, asked why we would exclude many small businesses when they are not excluded from other legislation that may be seen as a burden. The argument is hollow and does not cut through. For that reason, and because the noble and learned Lord has put forward an amendment that takes into account what was said in the Commons, it deserves our support. Should he put it to a vote, as I think he suggested he would, we will support him.
Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, notwithstanding the correction he made to the amendment, brings forward a very important point indeed. One of the great criticisms that is often made about dealing with fraud is that somehow law enforcement agencies are frightened of taking on the people who are committing fraud. I always thought it should be the other way around; the fraudster should be frightened of the law enforcement agency. Yet, for some bizarre reason, it is that way around—that cannot be right. It is not something that any of us want to be the case. Through his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has tried yet again to push the Government to do better and to do more than what is currently in the Bill. His amendment says to the Government, “Surely we should do better”. Indeed, the Treasury itself should be confident in the work of the law enforcement agencies. Some have suggested that those agencies should be indemnified against any costs they may incur.
I go back to two simple points. First is the point in the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier: why should small businesses be excluded from this legislation, other than the micro-businesses to which he referred, when we do not exclude them from other legislation that we think is important? Small businesses adhere to that legislation in the same way as other businesses. Secondly, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, gives us an opportunity to turn the tables and ensure that, rather than the law enforcement agencies being frightened of costs they may incur in ensuring that fraudsters are brought to book, the fraudsters are frightened. That is why, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, put their amendments to a vote, we will certainly support them.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will respond relatively briefly; I think I have rehearsed the majority of the arguments widely and frequently, and there is not much point in saying more to some of them. However, the precise point I was trying to make in my opening remarks is, in essence, about proportionality. My noble friend Lady Noakes referred to that extremely eloquently.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier oftens points out that 99.5% of business is exempted, but I repeat that this is very much a judgment call because 50% of economic activity is captured. My noble friend Lady Noakes referred to the opportunity cost and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, suggested that perhaps this is about businesses not checking whether they in some way have the right procedures in place to prevent fraud, but it is not about that. It is about many other factors that do not involve the business at hand, as my noble friend Lady Noakes referred to. Those other burdens are obviously partially financial, but not fully.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I wish to press my Motion E1 and test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 153A, 153B and 153C.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 159, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 159A.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 161 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 161A in lieu—
“Report on costs orders for proceedings for civil recovery
Report on costs orders for proceedings for civil recovery
(1) The Secretary of State must assess whether it would be appropriate to restrict the court’s power to order that the costs of proceedings under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are payable by an enforcement authority and, if so, how.
(2) In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the assessment by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) In this section “the court” means the High Court in England and Wales.”
Lord Faulks
Leave out from “161” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 161A in lieu, and do propose Amendment 161B in lieu—
“Civil recovery of proceeds of crime: costs of proceedings
Civil recovery: costs of proceedings
After section 313 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 insert—
“313A Costs orders
(1) This section applies to proceedings brought by an enforcement authority under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 where the property in respect of which the proceedings have been brought has been obtained through economic crime.
(2) The court should normally make an order that any costs of proceedings relating to a case to which this section applies (including appeal proceedings) are payable by an enforcement authority to a respondent or a specified responsible officer in respect of the involvement of the respondent or the officer in those proceedings, unless it would not be in the interests of justice.”””
Procurement Bill [HL]
Monday 11th September 2023
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 147-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (8 Sep 2023)
18:13 - Division on the amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 76 / Noes: 187 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
18:31 - Division on the Amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 187 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
19:25 - Division on Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 102 - Ayes: 156 / Noes: 151 - Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 102 agreed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, in moving this Motion I will speak to Amendments 1, 4, 5, 81 and 82. I am very pleased to bring this important Bill back to the House today for consideration of amendments made in the other place. It is, I believe, a key Brexit dividend, making it possible for us to develop and implement our own procurement regime, which will be simpler, more transparent, better for small businesses and better able to meet the UK’s needs. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who contributed to the lengthy discussion on the original Bill, first introduced to this House in May last year.
In the other place, we made a number of important changes to the Bill, including a debarment appeals process, clarification of the City of London’s status under the Bill, at its request, and provisions to address trade disputes relating to procurement. Importantly, we also took significant steps to strengthen national security provisions in the Bill, creating a new mechanism that will allow us to protect public procurement from risky suppliers. We also committed to removing Chinese surveillance equipment from government departments’ sensitive sites and dedicating additional resources within the Cabinet Office to scrutinise suppliers for potential national security threats. It is now crucial that we take the Bill through to Royal Assent, so that we can implement its many useful provisions.
This first group of amendments focuses on procurement rules for healthcare services and the national procurement policy statement. They overturn amendments made to the Bill on Report in this House. Amendments 1, 81 and 82 are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the Bill and the regulation of healthcare procurements. Engagement with the NHS has identified the requirement for a bespoke regime for healthcare services to drive the integration of healthcare and the development of better, more joined-up patient pathways through healthcare systems. This responds to the idiosyncrasies of the health system, as identified by those who work in it.
The forthcoming provider selection regime is a free-standing regulatory scheme of procurement rules which commissioners of healthcare services in the NHS and local government will follow when arranging healthcare services in their area. Parliament accepted this when passing the Health and Care Act 2022, which was debated for many days in this House. The DHSC published the results of its latest consultation in July and aims to lay the regulations in Parliament this Autumn. It would be incredibly unhelpful at this critical stage for both schemes, when both the healthcare regulations and the Procurement Bill are on the cusp of delivery, to start attempting to unpick it all. Doing so would add unacceptable and entirely avoidable costs and delays to both programmes for no tangible benefit.
Amendment 1 removes from the definition of a public authority in Clause 2(2)(a) the words “including the NHS”. This addition is unnecessary because it clearly meets the test for a public authority set out at Clause 2(a), which is that it is publicly funded. This is backed up by the fact that the relevant NHS bodies to be covered by this Bill as central government authorities are identified in draft regulations to be made under the power at Schedule 1(5). These regulations were consulted on over the summer and have been welcomed in this regard. Setting out the list of central government authorities in regulations is appropriate, as updates are needed from time to time as organisations inevitably change. Moreover, the NHS is not a single legal entity and does not have a clear meaning in law, so the naming of the NHS as a public authority in Clause 2 would have reduced clarity.
I turn now to Amendments 81 and 82. The version of what was then Clause 116 inserted on Report in this House needed to be removed and replaced with a provision that enables the DHSC to proceed with the provider selection regime. This is crucial for the reasons I have already set out, and I emphasise that this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the new affirmative regulations when they are laid. I hope that I have been able to provide the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose Motions 1A and 81A deal with these matters, with sufficient reassurances and that she will not press her amendments today.
Amendments 4 and 5 removed two amendments from Report stage in the Lords relating to the national procurement policy statement. These required that, prior to publishing an NPPS, the Minister must give due regard to a number of specified principles and mandated the inclusion of a number of priorities in the NPPS itself. In respect of the first amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has subsequently tabled a modified version of it—in Motions 4A and 4B in lieu—which, as before, would require the Minister drafting the NPPS to have regard to a set of principles. The modification suggests a set of principles more in line with those we have already established in Clause 12, and I am happy to set out the Government’s stance on this issue now.
The Government recognise that these principles are important to procurement, which is why they are already reflected throughout the Bill. For example, value for money, integrity and maximising public benefit are set out as procurement objectives in Clause 12, which I have already mentioned. Contracting authorities must have regard to these when carrying out procurements, and transparency requirements already run throughout the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before we proceed further in relation to Clause 12, will my noble friend confirm that the procurement objectives in Clause 12 relate to covered procurement only—that is, procurements that are in excess of the threshold—and therefore does not include exempt contracts, whereas the national procurement policy statement applies to all procurement?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
If I may, I will come back to that when I have finished presenting. I did ask that question today; I do not think there is that much difference, but I will come back to my noble friend.
There are other specific requirements in the Bill that place obligations on contracting authorities regarding the fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination in decision-making. On value for money, I know there is concern from across the House that it is often interpreted to mean lowest cost. We have sought to address this through the move from most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender at Clause 19, which stakeholders tell us is a powerful signal in this regard.
Including a similar set of principles in respect of the NPPS risks creating duplication and confusion when we are looking to simplify the regime. However, while the NPPS should focus on the priorities of the Government of the day, many of them are already reflected in the current non-statutory NPPS introduced by this Government, and we have consistently demonstrated our commitment to them through measures such as the strengthening of social value policy following the collapse of Carillion and the procurement policy on carbon reduction introduced in 2021. In addition, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 will continue to exist alongside the new regime established by the Bill. I hope that this will satisfy the noble Baroness.
The second amendment made by this House added a sub-section which required the inclusion of specific priorities in the national procurement policy statement relating to achieving targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, meeting the requirements set out in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, promoting innovation among potential suppliers and minimising the incidence of fraud. I believe that these issues are already addressed in the Bill—for example, in Clause 12—or elsewhere outside of this legislation. For example, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires contracting authorities to consider the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area when planning specified procurement, and there are additional obligations imposed by the Environment Act 2021. From 1 November 2023, Ministers will be under a statutory duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy and will be subject to this duty when preparing the NPPS.
Finally, the scope and extent of the NPPS needs to be flexible, and these things should not be set in stone. Noble Lords have highlighted net zero, social value and innovation, but new challenges arise, such as the security threat from the Russia-Ukraine war. The Government of the day need to be able to respond to each major new challenge in an appropriate manner, without needing to change primary legislation. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 1
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for our meeting last week. I have listened carefully to what she has said today and during that meeting; I am afraid that she has not convinced me that the procurement rules for the NHS would be as strong, clear, transparent and accountable as we find in this Procurement Bill. My Amendments 1A and 81A would ensure that the NHS is included.
During the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, the very short Clauses 79 and 80 gave the NHS exemption from this Bill, with procurement rules to be introduced in secondary legislation by the Health Secretary. Seventeen months on, this still has not happened. When she spoke just now, the Minister relied on government Amendment 82. However, in the consultation—it is, I believe, still open—the NHS provider selection scheme that she referred to sets out some general principles only. During an earlier stage of this Bill, in response to my earlier amendments, the noble Lord, Lord True, referred to clinical contracts being exempt. However, that is not so; in fact, I note that, today, the Minister has been referring to healthcare. Every single time I ask a Minister a question, the definition changes.
In the NHS provider selection scheme, the flexibility rests with NHS bodies to make their own decisions about which scheme they use. The consultation document says:
“This is intended to remove unnecessary levels of competitive tendering … the Provider Selection Regime is intended to make it straightforward to continue with existing arrangements for service provision where those arrangements are working well and there is no value for the patients, taxpayers, and population in seeking an alternative provider”.
Those phrases—“remove unnecessary levels of competitive tendering”, “working well” and “no value in seeking an alternative provider”—are worrying, frankly. The problem, as we have discussed at length in our debates on this Bill, is that poor practice creeps into a culture where people believe that things are working well. The rules that this Bill sets out are there to ensure that every public body putting out a tender has carefully thought through what is appropriate, not just working well.
There is evidence that the current practice in NHS procurement has a mixed record, whether at the highest level or right down at the level of local trusts and CCGs, which is often covered by the specialist press. Despite a blunt National Audit Office report in 2011 on value for money in NHS procurement, the experience during the pandemic showed that some of the deep-seated culture of things not being value for money and not being completely open and transparent continues. The NAO has commented on this and the NHS recognised it in its response paper, Raising Our Game, in which it said:
“Recent reports suggest NHS procurement is lagging behind industry procurement performance”.
Unlike Ministers, the Civil Service and staff at many other public bodies, who are constrained by conflict of interest rules, it is possible for NHS staff, including directors, to use a revolving door to move from the NHS and join a company that contracts with the NHS without a gap. Last year, a deputy director and the head of AI at NHS Digital both left and immediately joined the technology firm Palantir just as it was bidding for further contracts, some without open tendering; Palantir is known to be bidding currently for the federated digital platform contract, which is worth an estimated £360 million and is due to be awarded imminently. Only 10 days ago, the chief operating officer of the NHS left on a Friday and joined Doccla, the virtual ward company that is bidding for substantial NHS contracts, the following Monday. It was also reported in July this year that NHS Digital had spent £7 million on “irregular” payments to external contractors while, last year, the Treasury flagged “irregular” spending by the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS worth £1.3 billion. Let me say that again: £1.3 billion. Last year, the Technology and Construction Court found that staff from three CCGs in the south-west had manipulated a £2 million contract knowing it to be improper.
Many of these incidents are not reported widely. I thank in particular the Health Service Journal and other technology and health reporters for shining a light on this poor practice, even if it is not regular, wherever it has happened. This is not about those individuals nor the contracting companies. It is about the culture of procurement in the NHS. My amendment would ensure that by including the NHS in this Procurement Bill it would share robust regulations with other bodies and would be accountable and transparent even if there is a need for some subsequent special arrangements for complex clinical contracts. Not doing this will not change the culture of NHS procurement but including it in this Bill will. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 4A in this group is in my name. My amendment in lieu would insert a number of priorities and principles into the Bill. I will be fairly brief because we discussed these issues at length both in Committee and on Report but we felt that they were important enough—and were considered important enough by noble Lords during those debates—to bring the amendment back once again.
My amendment asks that due regard be given to a number of priorities and principles. The first is “maximising public benefit”. Public benefit is mentioned in the Bill but we feel that it is too vague, which is why we want to pin it down more within another amendment. Maximising public benefit would include
“the achievement of social value, through the securing of environmental objectives”;
many noble Lords were concerned at the lack of environmental objectives in the Bill. It would also include
“promoting innovation amongst potential suppliers”.
We also think that it is important to have
“value for money, by having regard to the optimal whole-life blend of economy, efficiency and effectiveness that achieves the intended outcome of the business case”.
In our previous debates, the Minister spoke strongly about the importance of value for money, so I hope that she understands why the second part of our amendment is clearly important and would strengthen the Bill.
The next part of my amendment deals with transparency. We think that it is important that we act
“openly to underpin accountability for public money”,
tackle corruption and ensure that all procurement is fully effective in achieving this. We also think that good management should be in place in order to have proper integrity, prevent misconduct and exercise
“control in order to prevent fraud and corruption”.
Importantly, we have added in “fair treatment of suppliers”. I thank the Minister for her work on improving the Bill for small and medium-sized enterprises, but we feel that more could be done to ensure that
“decision-making is impartial and without conflict of interest”.
The final part of my amendment concerns non-discrimination—that is,
“ensuring that decision-making is not discriminatory”.
The reason why we have had such a debate about this matter is that the principles were originally in the Government’s Green Paper and were consulted on. Our concern is that those principles were then left out of the Bill even though the objectives were included. So, my amendment would bring those principles back into the Bill.
We believe that social and public value are important requirements for any contracting authority to consider in order, for example, to encourage anyone contracting to work with local suppliers; to encourage contractors to reduce their CO2 emissions; to encourage the hiring of more apprentices; and to encourage greater diversity. We believe that, if the Government are to deliver their ambitions of levelling up and net zero, it will be important to include these principles in the Bill. We know that social value is included in the national procurement policy statement—the Minister made much of the NPPS in our previous debates—but it is not referred to in the Bill. We also know that public benefit is mentioned in the Bill, but it is not clear to us how social value would sit within that framework. How will it all come together to ensure that it works for the public benefit? We know that the NPPS will include the Government’s strategic priorities but, again, we do not know clearly what those are. Further, the Bill does not mention innovation, which is why it is an important part of my amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said when we previously debated the Bill:
“When our current Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he put innovation at the forefront of his economic approach to improving productivity”.—[Official Report, 28/11/22; col. 1619.]
So why not include it in this Procurement Bill?
As the Minister said in her previous response to similar amendments, innovation and competition have an important part to play here. Procurement should be an enabler of innovation. It is important that there is clarity around these principles and objectives. How will innovation be part of it, for example? The Bill will shortly become legislation. We must revisit these concerns and we want to persuade the Minister to consider very carefully what we have been saying and why we are saying it. From her responses, we do not believe that at previous stages there was adequate explanation of how all this would operate. Good sentiment from the Government and the Minister, and promises around an NPPS we have not seen, are not sufficient to ensure that we have the best procurement legislation possible, which we all want to see. Our amendments would help achieve that end.
Sadly, the Minister has again disappointed me with her introduction on these issues, although I thank her for all the work she has done as we have progressed so far. It is my intention to move my amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will contribute on Amendments 4A and 4B in particular. As noble Lords will recall, the structure of Amendment 4A, as an amendment in lieu of the Commons Amendment 4, incorporates to an extent some of the issues raised in the strategic priorities that your Lordships sent to the Commons to be included in the national procurement policy statement. I will explain how that works in a minute.
Like other noble Lords, I am grateful for the time and effort that my noble friend the Minister has given to listening to what we had to say. On Commons Amendment 5—which would get rid of the reference to “strategic priorities”—I was focused on innovation, as she knows. Innovation is essential to the quality and effectiveness of procurement. Also, public procurement is a substantial part of this country’s economic activity. If it promotes innovation, it can make a significant difference to our overall economic performance and to reconciling our productivity problems. The fact that, in the absence of Amendment 4, the Bill would make no reference to innovation is such an omission that, on those grounds alone, Amendment 4A should be added back to the Bill.
When we tabled our amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and I tried to ensure that the national procurement policy statement was clear about what we regarded as enduring strategic priorities. We have backed off from that. My noble friend and the Minister in the other place were clearly told that we must have maximum flexibility. I still do not understand why the Russian invasion of Ukraine might mean that public procurement in the United Kingdom should not have regard to social value; none the less, leaving that to one side for a moment, I accept that there is an ideological commitment in government to the idea that everything that government does must be so flexible that you cannot even predict some of the basic principles within it.
We have dropped the strategic priorities; we have made them principles. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, rightly has it, we have moved from “must include” to “have regard to”. Therefore, Ministers are not constrained to include in the statement innovation, the achievement of social value, the achievement of environmental objectives or, for that matter, transparency, integrity, fair treatment, non-discrimination and value for money. However, the idea that any of these things would be left out of a national procurement policy statement is wholly unacceptable.
I come back to the essential question: what are we trying to do? We are trying to set the framework for contracting authorities to undertake public procurement. From our point of view, the statement should include whatever the Government think it should include but it should not exclude such basic central principles of public procurement. We have only to ask ourselves what conclusion we would draw if the Government were to send a draft of an NPPS to Parliament which left these things out. In my view, we would have to reject it. What is the benefit of that? Better to put it in the Bill now, make it clear to Ministers and, frankly, officials, that it should be in the statement so that, when the draft of the NPPS comes, we can tick the box, send it forward and approve it.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, will add matters on social value. I just say that we may have left the EU public procurement regime but, when you look at the centrality of social value to public procurement in other jurisdictions across Europe, the idea that you would not seek social value through public procurement seems wholly unacceptable.
I was quite struck by the paucity of argument presented in Committee in the other place when our amendment to the Bill was deleted. In addition to:
“It needs to be as flexible as possible”,—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/23; col. 54.]
which was predictable, what irritated me especially, as my noble friend on the Front Bench is now aware, was that references to integrity, transparency and value for money are already in the Bill, in Clause 12. The Committee in the other place clearly paid no attention to the Bill in front of it, since Clause 12 relates to covered procurement. As we noticed in our debates in Committee, the national procurement policy statement is not confined to covered procurement. It extends to all procurement by government, though not including the NHS, which for these purposes seems to be excluded from “public authorities”, which is a curious definition in itself.
We knew that the NPPS was wider. The Committee at the other end seemed somehow to imagine that covered procurement was enough, but it excludes everything under about £112,000 in value. Therefore, many small procurements would not be affected by it. It simply is not acceptable. We need to go back and ask the Commons to think again about the exclusion of such central principles from the national procurement policy statement. It has been a long time coming back. We are nine months on from the point at which we sent the Bill to the Commons. We took some time getting it to the point that we did. Noble Lords will recall that on the first day in Committee we received 50 government amendments, this clever idea of covered procurement arising only at that point and not in the original draft of the Bill.
To make a final, acerbic comment, I find it somewhat astonishing that during the passage of the Bill the Government have been able to make many hundreds of amendments that they chose to make. At this stage, we are asking for only a small handful that the Lords want to make. The Government at this point might just bend and accept those amendments.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I regret that due to professional commitments I was unable to contribute as much as I would have liked to earlier stages of the Bill. However, I added my name to two amendments on Report, both of which focused on the importance of recognising social value in the development of the national procurement policy statement. I am grateful to the noble Lords who led on those amendments with such success—the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Worthington, and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Fox and Lord Lansley—a truly cross-party team.
The recognition of social value now returns for our consideration with Amendments 4A and 4B. I am again grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for taking the lead and so succinctly gathering in one place the essential priorities and principles to which regard should be given. Chief among them from my perspective is public benefit through the achievement of social value.
I should at this stage disclose my membership of the APPG for Social Enterprise and explain that I was privileged to chair its inquiry into the performance of social enterprise during the dark days of the pandemic. The conclusions of that report were compelling, revealing without doubt that social enterprises—that is, enterprises committed to the delivery of social value alongside more commercial ambitions—performed considerably better during the pandemic than their competitors, be they charities or strictly commercial enterprises. Social enterprises were more resilient, lighter on their feet and more diverse in their employment and service delivery. They delivered a lot more of the smaller contracts—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, identified, would not be covered by Clause 12—and they performed better economically.
Where they performed much worse than their competition was in their ability to secure support and funding from local and central government through public procurement. We noted that this was a particular issue in England, as compared with Wales and Scotland, because in those jurisdictions social enterprises and social value are identified as priorities within their public procurement strategies. With this amendment we will achieve the same and ensure that the delivery of social value is a priority for government. I urge that it is supported.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have much sympathy with Motion 1A in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, because I believe that treating the NHS as a special case in any area of public policy has the effect of insulating the NHS, which is a seriously underperforming organisation that desperately needs change.
Having said that, I am afraid I cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendments. Parliament has already decided, in the shape of the Health and Care Act 2022, that the NHS should be subject to a bespoke regime. In effect, the other place was asked to think about that again when this House sent the Procurement Bill there for consideration, and it has sent it back with its response—it wants to keep a bespoke regime for the NHS—so I think we have the answer to that. My noble friend the Minister has made clear that much work has already been done on the interface between the two regimes to make sure that nothing will fall through the cracks.
This boils down to a simple difference of view; the Government want to do it one way and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, wants to do it another way. I wonder whether this is really the kind of issue that should be the subject of a prolonged battle between the two Houses. I cannot see that there is a real point of principle here. Also, as my noble friend the Minister pointed out, implementation of that new system in the NHS is already quite a long way advanced and it would appear wasteful to try to undo all that.
I turn to Motion 4A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. She has tabled a list of what she calls “priorities and principles” that Ministers must consider before publishing a national procurement policy statement. At first sight these look wholesome and unobjectionable, as one might expect. I have two main reasons for not supporting her amendment.
First, the amendment is unnecessary. Government Ministers and their officials are already focused on value for money, transparency, integrity and even, I say to my noble friend Lord Lansley, innovation. It is government policy to pursue innovation; it is already part of the day-to-day life of government. Many of these items are either implicitly or explicitly already in the law, either administrative law or general law. As has been pointed out, some already feature in the objectives for covered procurements. My noble friend the Minister explained all this in her introductory remarks. Thinking that the Government need a special list of things to think about, in statute, misunderstands the processes of government.
Secondly, the list of items always reflects today’s concerns and is not future-proofed. While some issues such as transparency seem like eternal issues, they were not always unambiguously so. Today’s obsessions with things such as environmental matters will, I predict, be overtaken by other issues of concern, whether Russia and Ukraine or something that we have not yet thought about. I am not clever enough to predict what those other things will be; I just know that the world changes and the orientation of government policy will change with it. The inclusion of a list runs a real risk of being overtaken by events, which is why it is not good legislative practice to put such lists in statute. I hope that both noble Baronesses will not feel it necessary to pursue their amendments and divide the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by sharing my appreciation for the number of incisive contributions we have heard in the course of this short debate. It is always a pleasure to debate these things here. Of course, they have now been reviewed in the other place, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, and there was a long discussion, including a long Committee stage attended by my friend in the other place Alex Burghart. I particularly thank noble Lords for all the work that has gone into this across the House, including these important provisions.
My noble friend Lord Lansley is correct that the objective in Clause 12 applies to cover procurement. The NPPS clause allows an NPPS to cover all procurement, but in practice its scope will be determined by the contents of the statement. In my opening remarks I explained at some length the position on the coverage of the NHS. I will come back to one or two of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for all that she said. Concerning principles that need to be considered by Ministers in preparing the NPPS, these principles are already covered through other commitments and legislation, as I have already set out. The amendment is therefore not necessary, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said. In addition, our fundamental view is that the Government of the day should not be constrained by the Bill in their ability to prescribe something more specific. They are free to do so—and I think this is the charm of the Bill—through the NPPS rather than through primary legislation. The Bill is about clarity and simplicity, not layering rules on rules.
To understand how it works in practice, I refer my noble friend Lord Lansley—I think I have already discussed this with him—to the current non-statutory NPPS, which covers innovation and social value. Attempting to drive innovation, which I am as keen on as he is, in every single procurement will not always be relevant or proportionate. Our Bill drives innovation through, for example, our new competitive flexible procedure, pre-market engagement and our duty for contracting authorities to have regard to reducing barriers for SMEs—which will also benefit social enterprises, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to. Future NPPSs will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consulted on as appropriate.
The consideration of environmental targets and objectives relating to social value in preparing the NPPS, and the other principles set out in this amendment, are duplicative and would render the Bill more complex and confusing for contracting authorities and suppliers. Singling out specific objectives for Ministers to consider will create the impression that they trump others, which could unduly constrain flexibility for a Government to set priorities in future, which they will do through the NPPS. This is a principle seen in other legislation, where you have framing legislation and then statutory guidance.
Finally, regarding environmental considerations—as highlighted in discussions during the REUL Bill debates, although perhaps I should not remind noble Lords of those as they took a long time—Ministers will now be under a legal duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy, including the development of policies in accordance with the Bill.
On the NHS amendments championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I am grateful for the meetings that we have had but I believe that they stem from a confusion. NHS bodies are contracting authorities and therefore already covered by the Bill; we had a good conversation about mixed contracts and so on, which I think was helpful to us both. It would be inappropriate to remove the power to make the provider selection regime regulations, especially given the benefits that they will bring to patients.
In response to a question about the definition of healthcare services, the scope of services in the PSR has been consulted on and will be further supported by reference to a list of common procurement vocabulary codes, set out clearly in the PSR regulations. An indicative list of those codes was included in DHSC’s recent consultation on the PSR.
The noble Baroness made a point about conflicts of interest. Our Bill strengthens existing legal duties on conflicts of interest and embeds greater transparency throughout the commercial life cycle. This has been welcomed and, I think, is important. Furthermore, the provider selection regime regulations will clearly set out provisions for the effective management of conflicts of interest. The PSR is designed to ensure transparency across all procurement decisions to which it applies, including how the decisions were made. This transparency will help ensure that there is proper scrutiny and accountability of decisions to award contracts for healthcare services.
Finally, an independently chaired panel will provide expert review and advice concerning decisions made under the PSR, helping to ensure that procurement processes are transparent, fair and proportionate. I very much hope that that additional information about our plans for the PSR will enable this debate about just how these two regimes, both of which have been discussed constructively and at length in this House, fit together, and that noble Lords feel able to support the government amendments and withdraw the amendments that they have put forward.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this brief debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for at least agreeing with the principle, even if she cannot support me in the Division Lobby, because it is really important.
For all the reasons that the Minister outlined, we are where we are. When we were working on the Health and Care Bill, it was absolutely evident that the secondary legislation changes would be outlined quickly thereafter—I am looking at others who were in the Chamber at the same time—and agreed by last autumn. We are now 17 months on and there is no sight of them at all.
The Minister outlined the NHS provider selection scheme and all its arrangements. That it is not looking for a culture change worries me most. In my earlier speech I gave examples of the behaviour of three senior managers at three CCGs, which the public would not have known about if the losing company had not gone to the Technology and Construction Court. This revealed that it is all too easy, where the culture is poor, for people to believe that the rules are being followed when they are not.
I appreciate that we have a point of difference on this, but on our Benches we believe that there is much benefit in this Procurement Bill and do not understand why the NHS is excluded. It is perfectly possible to include some special arrangements for it, but nothing has happened since the Health and Care Act was enacted. At the moment, nothing we are hearing from the NHS is about that culture change. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 and 3.
“(8A) In this Act, a reference to a public authority includes a reference to the
Common Council of the City of London.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in moving this Motion I will speak to the other amendments in the group.
Amendments 2, 3 and 99 ensure that the City of London is appropriately regulated by the Bill and that its private sector activities are not inappropriately captured.
Amendments 6 to 12 deal variously with abnormally low and unsuitable tenders, and the definition of disabled and disadvantaged people in contracts specifically directed to help them.
Amendment 10, which I know is of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who I thank for his co-operation on this large number of amendments, requires that any procedural breach that results in a tender being unsuitable must be material. This tightens the circumstances in which a switch to direct award can be made. The transparency notice will ensure that any awards under Clause 43 are publicised, and, if the provision is abused, there will be opportunity for suppliers to bring a challenge and for the procurement review unit to investigate.
Amendments 13 to 22, 48 to 56, and 61 to 64 deal with the publishing of KPIs, tendering timescales for utilities and non-central government contracting authorities, standards and accreditation, electronic communications, e-invoicing and payment compliance, and contract change notices.
Amendment 60 and the consequential amendments—Amendments 76, 85, 88, 90, 91 and 92—introduce an enabling power which gives the UK the ability to take retaliatory action as a result of a procurement-related dispute with a country with which we have a free trade agreement on procurement.
Amendments 65 and 66 strengthen the record-keeping obligations with the Bill, to reflect obligations under our international agreements.
Amendments 83, 87 and 89 relate to financial thresholds, ensuring that, where thresholds for the publication of KPIs need to be changed, the affirmative procedure will apply.
Amendments 95 and 96 clarify the reasonableness test in Schedule 2, following feedback from the Local Government Association.
Amendment 104 extends the new power that the Bill will insert into the Defence Reform Act by allowing regulations to ensure that, under specified circumstances, certain existing contracts, when amended, can be treated as new contracts and brought within the scope of the single-source regime. Amendment 104 relates to single-source defence contracts entered into after the Act came into force but which were below the regime threshold and are subsequently amended to a contract value above that threshold.
Amendments 23, 24, 26 to 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 39, 43, 44 to 46, 68, 72, 73, 75, 84 and 103 strengthen and ensure that the debarment and exclusion regimes in the Bill function as intended by inserting a substantive debarment appeals regime to replace the enabling power. Noble Lords will remember that, in this House, we thought it was better to have that in the Bill rather than in regulations.
Finally, the Government introduced Amendments 58, 59, 69, 70, 71, 74, 77 to 80, 86 and 93 in the other place at the request of the devolved Administrations. These amend how the legislation applies in relation to devolved procurement in Wales or Scotland and ensure that the regime runs effectively. They reflect constructive discussions.
I apologise for the number of amendments but we have sent out a letter explaining exactly what these all entail. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was being uncharacteristically acerbic, he mentioned the number of amendments to which this legislation has been subjected. I believe that the Deputy Speaker was present in the Grand Committee when we were wading through some of the 450 or so amendments that were laid before us. It is therefore quite appropriate that, as we wave goodbye—probably—to this legislation from this House, your Lordships are confronted with another 85 amendments. However, in this particular case they have been well explained—for which I thank the Minister—and are non-controversial. In that respect, we can leave in perhaps a slightly less acerbic way than we arrived.
I expect His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to press the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We on these Benches will support that, in the event that she so does.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I played a very small part in the Committee stage of this Bill, mostly seeking to protect and promote the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises, and I welcome its provisions in that regard.
I take this opportunity to welcome Amendments 8 and 9 from the Commons and to thank the Minister, her colleagues and her officials for getting them included in the Bill. The Bill as it originally stood had the unintended effect of reducing the scope of existing provision for reserving certain contracts for supported employment providers. These amendments ensure that no such reduction will occur. I am most grateful to the Minister for listening to the concerns raised by Aspire Community Works—itself a supported employment provider—to address and, indeed, resolve this issue.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 4B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“(b) have regard to the following priorities and principles—
(i) maximising public benefit, including by the achievement of social value, through the securing of environmental objectives and from economic benefits, including by promoting innovation amongst potential suppliers,
(ii) value for money, by having regard to the optimal whole-life blend of economy, efficiency and effectiveness that achieves the intended outcome of the business case,
(iii) transparency, by acting openly to underpin accountability for public money, anti-corruption and the effectiveness of procurements,
(iv) integrity, by providing good management, preventing misconduct, and exercising control in order to prevent fraud and corruption,
(v) fair treatment of suppliers, by ensuring that decision-making is impartial and without conflict of interest, and
(vi) non-discrimination, by ensuring that decision-making is not discriminatory,””
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 5 to 24.
“(ba) may disregard any tender that offers a price that the contracting authority considers to be abnormally low for performance of the contract;”
“(3A) Before disregarding a tender under subsection (3)(ba) (abnormally low price), a contracting authority must—
(a) notify the supplier that the authority considers the price to be abnormally low, and
(b) give the supplier reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that it will be able to perform the contract for the price offered.
(3B) If the supplier demonstrates to the contracting authority’s satisfaction that it will be able to perform the contract for the price offered, the authority may not disregard the tender under subsection (3)(ba) (abnormally low price).”
(a) disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the workforce of the organisation,
(b) if a particular part of the organisation is to perform the contract, disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the workforce of that part of the organisation, or
(c) if more than one organisation is to perform the contract, disabled or disadvantaged individuals represent at least 30 per cent of the combined workforce of— (i) those organisations,
(ii) where a particular part of each organisation is to perform the contract, those parts, or
(iii) where a combination of organisations and parts is to perform the contract, those organisations and parts.”
“(2A) A contracting authority must publish any key performance indicators set under subsection (1).”
“The contract— (a) being awarded is a utilities contract, or (b) is being awarded by a contracting authority that is not a central government authority, and is subject to a negotiated tendering period | No minimum period |
The contract— (a) being awarded is a utilities contract, or (b) is being awarded by a contracting authority that is not a central government authority, and tenders may be submitted only by preselected suppliers | 10 days” |
““central government authority” has the meaning given in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 (threshold amounts);
“negotiated tendering period” means a tendering period agreed between a contracting authority and pre-selected suppliers in circumstances where tenders may be submitted only by those preselected suppliers;”
““pre-selected supplier” means a supplier that—
(a) has been assessed as satisfying conditions of participation before being invited to submit a tender as part of a competitive tendering procedure, or
(b) in the case of a contract that is being awarded by reference to suppliers’ membership of a dynamic market, is a member of that market;”
“(za) the standard adopts an internationally-recognised equivalent, or”
“(3A) If the procurement documents refer to a United Kingdom standard, they must provide that tenders, proposals or applications that the contracting authority considers satisfy an equivalent standard from another state, territory or organisation of states or territories will be treated as having satisfied the United Kingdom standard.
(3B) In considering whether a standard is equivalent to a United Kingdom standard for the purposes of subsection (3A), a contracting authority may have regard to the authority’s purpose in referring to the standard.
(3C) A contracting authority may require certification, or other evidence, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a standard is satisfied or equivalent.”
“(b) are primarily developed for use in the United Kingdom, or part of the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 25.
“(2A) If a supplier is an excluded supplier on the basis of the supplier or an associated person being on the debarment list only by virtue of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security), the supplier is to be treated as an excluded supplier only in relation to public contracts of a kind described in the relevant entry.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendments 29, 33, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 57, 100 and 101 in this group. These amendments significantly strengthen the exclusions and debarment provisions on national security grounds. I hope they will further assure noble Lords that the Government are taking the issue of national security seriously and are ready to take action. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who I see in his seat and who has worked tirelessly to raise this issue in the House, for our constructive meetings.
The new amendments will enable a Minister of the Crown to take a stronger approach in response to a specific risk profile of a particular supplier and make targeted decisions about whether the debarment should be mandatory for particular types of contracts, depending on the nature of the risk. If the supplier poses an unacceptable risk in relation to selected goods—for example, networked communications equipment—the Minister will be able to enter on the debarment list that the supplier is an excluded supplier for contracts for the supply or support of that type of equipment.
The entry may also, or as an alternative, stipulate that the supplier is excluded from contracts relating to certain locations or sites, or from contracts let by certain contracting authorities. This removes discretion from contracting authorities regarding exclusions where a supplier poses a threat for particular contracts, thereby reducing the risk of a supplier being allowed to participate in those procurements. By allowing this type of targeted and proportionate approach, we can direct that suppliers must be excluded where the risks are unacceptable and allow contracting authorities to make appropriate choices where the risk is manageable—for example, for the provision of pencils or plastic furniture.
Amendment 31 commits a Minister of the Crown to keep suppliers under review for potential investigation for debarment on national security grounds. This amendment commits Ministers to proactively consider new debarment investigations where there is evidence of risk so that the Government can act effectively and on time. We believe this would be highly advantageous in minimising the risk of those who pose a threat to our national security being awarded public contracts.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister. I will come back to that in a few moments, because she has been extraordinarily helpful, and I know we have made significant progress from when the first amendment was moved on this issue.
In parenthesis, before I begin—and because I will not weary the House with a second speech later, even if the opportunity is there—I would like to say how much I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, is trying to achieve with Motion 102A and Amendment 102B. Again, I have spoken on those previously, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, from the Conservative Benches, my noble friend Lady Finlay—who is unable to be with us this evening—and many others who want to support what the noble Lord is trying to achieve.
I turn to Clause 65 and Amendment 47B in Motion 47A in my name. As the Minister said, it would require a timeline for the removal of surveillance equipment that is connected to the internet and subject to the People’s Republic of China’s national intelligence law. I did say that I would like to start my remarks, and I do, by paying tribute to the Minister’s own efforts and those of her officials, who have met with me now on several occasions—most recently on Thursday last—to discuss the concerns of Members of both Houses when it comes to the presence of Chinese-made surveillance cameras in our public procurement chain.
As recently as yesterday, the Sunday Telegraph reported that the Co-op has decided to ban Chinese CCTV for “ethical and security reasons”. Given the Minister’s professional background in a previous life, she will know that, in doing this, it is following the example of Tesco. It would indeed be odd if supermarkets were ahead of public bodies in recognising the dangers posed by the CCP’s surveillance state. I was also very struck that the Deputy Prime Minister, the right honourable Oliver Dowden, speaking in another place this afternoon about allegations concerning espionage on the estate of your Lordships’ House and that of another place, made a point of saying that one of his first actions in Whitehall had been to have surveillance cameras linked to Hikvision removed from his department. This is something that Sajid Javid also said when he became Secretary of State for Health. I simply say that, if supermarkets and departments of state are not suitable places for these cameras, where is? It would indeed be odd if we did not think about the 60% of public bodies that are estimated to have Hikvision cameras in use.
This is not a new question that I am putting to your Lordships’ House; this is something I have raised on over 40 occasions in the House or in Grand Committee since 2020. Both the Minister and the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord True, have taken this issue seriously. When the noble Lord was in charge of this Bill, in its earliest stages, we had a meeting to discuss Hikvision. Because I want to get on with seeing a resolution of this issue, I am able to welcome the clear commitment from the Minister, given at the Dispatch Box, for a timetable for the removal of this surveillance equipment and these cameras from sensitive sites. However, it is worth noting, as I have said, how we got here.
As the Government have recognised, there are at least a million Hikvision and Dahua cameras in the UK, installed across our high streets, job centres, schools, police forces, hospitals, universities, local government buildings and even government departments. I gently say to the Minister that, although she is right that military barracks or GCHQ are clearly far more sensitive sites than, say, hospitals or schools, some of this is about data collection. That involves every single citizen of this country, so it poses dangers for them too. I commend to her the recent Channel 4 documentary on Hikvision and the fantastic work of IPVM, Big Brother Watch, Hong Kong Watch—of which I am a patron—and other organisations that have outlined the security risk that these cameras pose, particularly in those sensitive public sector sites, but not exclusively so.
It is quite something to consider that, as a country, we have willingly handed over the majority of our surveillance infrastructure, which watches the often public and sometimes intimately private moments of our lives, not just to the police or local authorities but to an authoritarian Government that the House of Commons has found, on a resolution of the House, credibly accused of genocide. I declare a non-financial interest as vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs.
How ironic it is that we are debating this on the day we have learned that an alleged CCP spy has been operating across Parliament, based in the office of a Member of another place. We urgently need a bicameral group of senior parliamentarians to investigate this shocking lapse. The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has warned against the infiltration of our universities and other institutions. Only last week, the University of Cambridge ended a partnership with a subsidiary company developing Chinese weapons and military hardware. The line between crass naivety and outright collaboration is a fine one. We recall the Cambridge spies and the Soviet Union, and some of the disastrous consequences. It should send a shiver down the spine of every freedom-loving person to see swathes of the public surveillance procurement supply chain handed over to Chinese companies that are blacklisted for complicity in gross human rights violations by the United States and which are legally compelled under the PRC national intelligence law to pass on data to the Chinese Communist Party state.
As we debate the timeline for their removal from our public procurement supply chain, the definition of what we should consider “sensitive sites” and the oversight that Members of this House and another place will have should be high on our agenda. Surely, for too long government policy towards China has favoured investment and trade at the expense of our national security, our values and human rights. We have underestimated the PRC, ignored the voices of those Uighurs, Hong Kongers, Tibetans and others who have been persecuted by the CCP and know it best, and failed to produce a coherent strategy to deal with the threat that the PRC poses. I am always struck by the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, who knows a thing or two about China. He describes it as cakeism—wanting to have your cake and eat it—to want trade deals on the one hand, but recognise the country as a threat to your national interest on the other.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 102A and 102B. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I very much agree with the thrust of what he said and look forward to the results of his eagle eye, which I am sure will come to your Lordships’ House over the next months and years. Like him, I also thank the Minister for her stewardship of the Bill. It has taken so long that I recollect that on our first day in Committee, the noble Baroness herself had laid many amendments which she seemed to have to refute later on in proceedings on the Bill. At least she knows how it feels to have a government Minister reject so many well-argued points.
I thank the Minister also for what she said about the Government’s view of the appalling atrocities being committed in China, with the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned and widespread throughout China. The victims at the moment are known to be primarily Falun Gong practitioners, but most recent evidence suggests that Uighur Muslims are also being targeted on a massive scale, particularly in Xinjiang.
My amendment was supported by noble Lords all around the House on Report. Essentially, it gave a discretionary power to exclude suppliers from being awarded a public contract if they have participated in forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue, including where they are involved in providing a service or goods relating to such activities. The effect of the amendment would have been to prevent any service or goods that may have been involved in, or developed off the back of, the forced harvesting trade entering the UK. When it went back to the Commons, the Government took the provision out in Committee. This was challenged on Commons Report, led by my honourable friend Marie Rimmer. Despite support from MPs of all parties, that was not successful, so I am asking noble Lords to send it back to the Commons for further consideration.
My reasons, briefly, are threefold. First, the scale of the atrocities being carried out in China, specifically in Xinjiang, are becoming ever clearer and more horrific. Secondly, I believe that Ministers were wrong in dismissing the need for the amendment, both in the response they gave in the Commons to my colleagues and in the comments that the Minister has given tonight. Thirdly, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the context in which this is being debated is, frankly, that government policy towards China is completely inadequate to the threats that country poses to the interests of the United Kingdom.
On the scale of the atrocities, I can do no better than to quote what Sir Iain Duncan Smith said on Report in the Commons. He referred to the 2022 UN report, which found serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. He said:
“They seem to be about the most significant human rights abuses currently happening in the world,”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/23; col. 205.]
whether we use the term “genocide” or not.
What the Minister has essentially said is first that we do not need to do this because there is a discretionary power in the Bill already, and secondly that there is no evidence, as far as the Government are aware, that a supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. On the first point, I believe that there is considerable merit in making explicit reference in the Bill to this matter, so that public authorities are in no doubt whatever that they can use a discretionary power to deal with companies that may be dealing, maybe inadvertently, in this abhorrent trade. Secondly, I think there is evidence of taxpayers’ money being spent on companies involved in forced organ harvesting. For example, pharmaceutical companies may be supplying immunosuppressant drugs to hospitals that have been reported to remove organs from prisoners of conscience.
As I have said, we cannot consider these matters without seeing them in the context of UK policy towards China. I am not going to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, nor to requote. We have now had our Lordships’ Select Committee, then chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in its report only last month on the Indo-Pacific tilt policy. They all draw attention to the Government’s woefully inadequate response to the threat that China presents and to the very ambiguity there is in policy. We can see the obvious tension between our security, on one hand, and the willingness and wish of the Government to trade with China and to encourage Chinese investment, but I am afraid that, in trying to get a balance, we have ended up with a Government with a wholly inadequate and incoherent policy.
My amendment is very modest. All it does is give the decision-maker discretionary powers to exclude a supplier from a procurement contract if it
“or a connected person has been, or is, involved in … forced organ harvesting, or … dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting”.
It would be the first piece of UK legislation to include and define forced organ harvesting. It would be a huge step in preventing UK complicity in forced organ harvesting, and I urge the House to support it.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I was a signatory to earlier amendments and we have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, make a very cogent case for the Commons to think again about his amendments. I will be very brief, given the hour. The noble Lord built on what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, outlined just now, and his case is backed by international investigation and evidence. Thus, for example, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, not an institution that would say this lightly, concludes in relation to Xinjiang:
“Allegations of … torture … including forced medical treatment … are credible”.
The Minister in the Commons and now the Minister in the Lords have argued that current legislation covers the problem identified in this amendment, but noble Lords will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, make a very persuasive case that this is not so. My noble friend Lord Fox will comment further shortly but, if the noble Lord decides to put this to a vote, from these Benches we will support him.
Lord Fox (LD)
Very shortly, it seems.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Hunt, for bringing forward these two amendments. I shall address them sequentially. I do not share the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about supermarkets being able to lead. I am sure the Minister will probably agree that supermarkets are in contact with their customers. They sense the morality and the feelings of their customers, so they do not just lead—they follow. Perhaps we are a bit slow in picking up the moral revulsion that people have out there, and also the fear of scrutiny from a totalitarian regime. I think both those issues play with the public, the public play those back to the supermarkets and the supermarkets have very good antennae for picking them up. We should share their sensitivity to these issues.
The noble Lord made an excellent speech for which he is to be congratulated because, working from here back to the Commons, we have seen significant progress. We have seen a great deal of progress, and I support him in not having to move his Motion this time. He mentioned en passant the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I endorse what he said. The Cabinet Office is now responsible for the National Security and Investment Act—there is a team there working on that—and it now has a team working on this. It behoves those teams, if they are not the same people, certainly to be close to one another, close to the ISC and able to feed off the intelligence that the ISC can give them, which no other committees can. I hope the Minister is able to reinforce that.
Lord Fox (LD)
Eagle—thank goodness. I thought it was an evil eye. I was going to describe it as beady. I thought his “evil eye” was going to be upon the Minister and I was a little concerned for her safety. It is getting late.
Moving on, as my noble friend set out, we will support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. There can be no place in the UK supply chain for businesses that engage in this behaviour, and we have to be absolutely sure that there is no place, which is why the noble Lord is right to want to explicitly write this in. I regret that the fact that my noble friend Lady Brinton’s amendment was not accepted means that if the noble Lord is successful, his amendment will not apply to the National Health Service, which seems rather unfortunate as it would probably be the prime customer. None the less, getting it in writing and putting it in there is very important and will be enthusiastically supported.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I thank both noble Lords for such excellent speeches on really important issues and important amendments that have been brought back for further discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, again and again draws our attention to where we need to act on wrongs in this world. Clearly, we must do all we can to tackle modern slavery, genocide and crimes against humanity. He is right to draw our attention to the serious examples he gave us in his speech of where this is happening. We believe that procurement policy can and should contribute to that end where it can. I say to the Minister that the Government have listened to much of what the noble Lord has said; we have moved forward to some extent on this.
My noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment clearly spells out why we need to be doing something about this. Reading his amendment, what struck me was the definition. I will read it, because I think it is at the crux of this:
“‘Forced organ harvesting’ means killing a person without their consent so that their organs may be removed and transplanted into another person”.
I cannot think of many things more appalling than that, so we fully support my noble friend. He deserves the thanks of the House for bringing this forward. He has our full support, but I wish the Government would consider amending the Bill in this way.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness on the excellence of the two speeches we have had during this important debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, again for his contribution. I am delighted that we have been able to agree on this matter so that the changes we have agreed can be moved forward. I thought his speech, ranging from what the Co-op and Tesco are doing, through the Cambridge spies, the absolute horror of what is being imposed on the Uighurs, and all the other things he said that I will not repeat, bears reading and reflecting on.
On the use of surveillance equipment—to respond to one point the noble Lord made—in the wider public sector, I should add that if the Government consider the risk to be intolerable, they are able to take action. That does not have to be enshrined in primary legislation. On the point about parliamentary scrutiny, the Government carefully consider and respond to all Select Committee recommendations. The annual written report on surveillance cameras, once laid in Parliament, will be available to all committees. I am sure it will receive appropriate scrutiny and a great deal of interest.
Turning to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Hayman, we all agree that organ harvesting is a horrific practice. However, given that we already have provisions in this Bill relating to professional misconduct—which will cover organ harvesting—it would seem inappropriate and odd to single out this particular, albeit horrific, practice in this Bill, and not others, especially given that the risk of this practice occurring in public contracts is low. While the issue is of key importance, the amendment itself largely duplicates the Government’s existing efforts. I cannot agree with the criticism of this given all we have done to try to improve this Bill and make the arrangements better. As I have said, there is a reference to organ harvesting in the NHS legislation. To pick up on the various security areas we have now in the Cabinet Office, they will work closely together. That is how you defeat the enemy on these things.
The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken in the other place on these issues today, and the Leader of the House will be repeating the Statement shortly when we finish this business. Obviously, that is some context. This Government have already taken steps to act on the risk from foreign influence and demonstrated that they are willing to act when the risk is intolerable. Our action on the risk of using certain surveillance equipment on government-sensitive sites was necessary and proportionate. This Bill will help us further, as the national security debarment provisions will enable us to act in public procurements where we see malign influence. This is a major change that has been made to this Bill. It is very encouraging that this House has influenced it and then welcomed it on its return from the other place. This is how good legislation is made, I hope.
It is crucial that we bring this most important Bill to Royal Assent as quickly as possible. I hope noble Lords will back us today, and I hope that in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment. In any event, we need to move forward and get this Bill on the statute book.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 26 to 46.
(i) under section 57(1)(a) or (2)(a) by virtue”
“(ii) on the basis of being on the debarment list by virtue of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security).”
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown must—
(a) have regard to the fact that contracting authorities may be unknowingly awarding public contracts to suppliers that—
(i) could be excludable suppliers by virtue of paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 (threat to national security), or
(ii) are sub-contracting to suppliers that could be excludable suppliers by virtue of that paragraph, and
(b) in light of that fact, keep under review whether particular suppliers or sub-contractors should be investigated under this section.”
“whether the Minister is satisfied that the supplier is, by virtue of a relevant exclusion ground, an excluded or excludable supplier, and if the Minister is so satisfied—
(a) in respect of each applicable relevant exclusion ground— (i) whether it is a mandatory or discretionary ground,
(ii) the date on which the Minister expects the ground to cease to apply (see paragraph 43 of Schedule 6 and paragraph 16 of Schedule 7), and
(iii) whether the Minister intends to make an entry to the debarment list,
(b) in respect of the exclusion ground in paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (if applicable), the description of contracts in relation to which the Minister—
(i) is satisfied the ground applies, and
(ii) intends to refer to in a relevant entry in the debarment list, and”
(3A) In this section, the “relevant debarment information” means—
(a) the exclusion ground to which the entry relates;
(b) whether the exclusion ground is mandatory or discretionary;
(c) in the case of an entry made on the basis of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security), a description of the contracts in relation to which the supplier is to be an excluded supplier;
(d) the date on which the Minister expects the exclusion ground to cease to apply (see paragraph 43 of Schedule 6 and paragraph 15 of Schedule 7).”
“(5A) The Minister may not enter a supplier’s name on the debarment list before the end of the period of eight working days beginning with the day on which the Minister gives notice to the supplier in accordance with subsection (5) (the “debarment standstill period”).
(5B) The Minister may not enter a supplier’s name on the debarment list if—
(a) during the debarment standstill period—
(i) proceedings under section (Debarment decisions: interim relief)(1) (interim relief) are commenced, and
(ii) the Minister is notified of that fact, and
(b) the proceedings have not been determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of.”
“(b) may remove an entry from the debarment list,
(c) in the case of an entry added on the basis of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security), may revise an entry to remove a description of contracts, and
(d) may revise a date indicated under subsection (3A)(d).
(7) If a Minister of the Crown voluntarily removes or revises an entry in connection with proceedings under section (Debarment decisions: appeals), a Minister of the Crown may reinstate the entry only after the proceedings have been determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of.
(7A) A Minister of the Crown must—
(a) remove an entry if the Minister is satisfied that the supplier is not an excluded or excludable supplier by virtue of the ground stated in the entry, and
(b) in the case of an entry added on the basis of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security), revise the entry to remove a description of contracts if the Minister is satisfied the exclusion ground in that paragraph does not apply in relation to contracts of that description.”
“Debarment decisions: interim relief
(1) A supplier may apply to the court for suspension of the Minister’s decision to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list.
(2) Proceedings under subsection (1) must be brought during the debarment standstill period.
(3) The court may make an order to—
(a) suspend the Minister’s decision to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list until—
(i) the period referred to in subsection (3)(b) of section (Debarment decisions: appeals) ends without proceedings having been brought, or
(ii) proceedings under that section are determined, discontinued or otherwise disposed of, and
(b) if relevant, require that an entry in respect of the supplier be temporarily removed from the debarment list.
(4) In considering whether to make an order under subsection (3), the court must have regard to—
(a) the public interest in, among other things, ensuring that public contracts are not awarded to suppliers that pose a risk,
(b) the interest of the supplier, including in relation to the likely financial impact of not suspending the decision, and
(c) any other matters that the court considers appropriate.
(5) In this section—
“the court” means—
(a) in England and Wales, the High Court,
(b) in Northern Ireland, the High Court, and
(c) in Scotland, the Court of Session;
“debarment standstill period” has the meaning given in section 62
(debarment list).”
“(3) After considering an application under subsection (1), the Minister must—
(a) notify the supplier of the Minister’s decision, and
(b) give reasons for the decision.”
“Debarment decisions: appeals
(1) A supplier may appeal to the court against a decision of a Minister of the Crown—
(a) to enter the supplier’s name on the debarment list,
(b) to indicate contracts of a particular description as part of an entry made in respect of the supplier on the basis of paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security),
(c) to indicate a particular date as part of an entry in respect of the supplier under section 62(3A)(d), or
(d) not to remove or revise an entry made in respect of the supplier, following an application under section (63).
(2) Proceedings under subsection (1)—
(a) may only be brought by a United Kingdom supplier or a treaty state supplier,
(b) may only be brought on the grounds that, in making the decision, the Minister made a material mistake of law, and
(c) must be commenced before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the supplier first knew, or ought to have known, about the Minister’s decision.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if, in proceedings under subsection (1)(a) or (b), the court is satisfied that—
(a) the Minister made a material mistake of law, and
(b) in consequence of the mistake, a contracting authority excluded the supplier from participating in a competitive tendering procedure, or other selection process, in reliance on section 57(1)(b) or (2)(b).
(4) The court may make one or more of the following orders—
(a) an order setting aside the Minister’s decision;
(b) an order to compensate the supplier for any costs incurred by the supplier in relation to participating in the procedure or process referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(5) Otherwise, if the court is satisfied that the Minister made a material mistake of law, the court may make an order setting aside the Minister’s decision.
(6) In this section—
“the court” has the meaning given in section (Debarment decisions: interim relief) (interim relief);
the reference to a supplier being excluded includes a reference to—
(a) the supplier’s tender being disregarded under section 26;
(b) the supplier becoming an excluded supplier for the purposes of section 41(1)(a), 43(1) or 45(6)(a).”
“Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure
Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (disclosure of sensitive material) applies in relation to proceedings under sections (Debarment decisions: interim relief)(1) (interim relief) and 64 (appeals) as if, in each of the following provisions, each reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—
(a) section 6(2)(a), (7) and (9)(a) and (c);
(b) section 7(4)(a);
(c) section 8(1)(a);
(d) section 11(3);
(e) section 12(2)(a) and (b).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 47.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 48 to 80.
“(5A) The implied term does not prevent a contracting authority—
(a) requiring the use of a particular system in relation to electronic invoices;
(b) in the case of a defence authority (as defined in section 7(5)), requiring the use of a system that requires the payment of fees by the supplier.”
“(za) “electronic invoice” and “required electronic form” have the meanings given in section 66(3);”
(d) in relation to a concession contract.”
(a) in respect of which the contracting authority is required to publish a contract change notice under section 74, and”
(1) A relevant contracting authority may not terminate a contract by reference to the implied term in section 77 on the basis of the mandatory exclusion ground in paragraph 34A of Schedule 6 (threat to national security) unless the authority has notified a Minister of the Crown of its intention.”
(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may only include provision that is equivalent to provision in—
(a) subsection (1), (2), (5) or (6) of section 88 (treaty state suppliers),
(b) section 89 (treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination), or
(c) Schedule 9 (specified international agreements).
(1B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a Minister of the Crown considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, that the regulations are necessary in order to ratify or comply with an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
(1C) In subsection (1B), the reference to being a signatory to an international agreement includes a reference to having—
(a) exchanged instruments, where the exchange constitutes the agreement;
(b) acceded to the agreement.”
“(b) a reference to discrimination is a reference to discrimination as defined in section 89.”
“Trade disputes
(1) This section applies where there is, or has been, a dispute relating to procurement between the United Kingdom and another state, territory or organisation of states or territories in relation to an international agreement specified in Schedule 9.
(2) An appropriate authority or the Scottish Ministers may by regulations make such provision relating to procurement as the authority considers, or the Scottish Ministers consider, appropriate in consequence of the dispute.
(3) Any provision made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (2) must relate to procurement—
(a) carried out by devolved Scottish authorities, or
(b) under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements.
(4) Regulations under this section may include provision modifying primary legislation, whenever passed (including this Act).
(5) In subsection (1), the reference to an international agreement specified in Schedule 9 does not include a reference to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one part, and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the other part, signed at Brussels and London on 30 December 2020.”
“(2A) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply in relation to an electronic communications system used, or required to be used—
(a) after the award of the public contract, or
(b) in relation to a utilities dynamic market.”
“Record-keeping
(1) A contracting authority must keep such records as the authority considers sufficient to explain a material decision made for the purpose of awarding or entering into a public contract.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a decision is “material” if, under this Act, a contracting authority is required—
(a) to publish or provide a notice, document or other information in relation to the decision, or
(b) to make the decision.
(3) A contracting authority must keep records of any communication between the authority and a supplier that is made—
(a) in relation to the award or entry into of a public contract, and
(b) before the contract is entered into.
(4) A record under this section must be kept until—
(a) the day on which the contracting authority gives notice of a decision not to award the contract (see section 55), or
(b) the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the contract is entered into or, if the contract is awarded but not entered into, awarded.
(5) This section does not apply in relation to defence and security contracts.
(6) This section does not affect any other obligation under any enactment or rule of law by virtue of which a contracting authority must retain documents or keep records, including for a longer period.”
“(6A) A supplier may not bring proceedings under this Part on the grounds that one or more of the following decisions of a Minister of the Crown was unlawful—
(a) a decision to enter a supplier’s name on the debarment list;
(b) a decision relating to the information included in an entry on the debarment list;
(c) a decision not to remove an entry from the debarment list, or revise information included in such an entry,
(see section (Debarment decisions: appeals)).”
“Part 9 proceedings and closed material procedure
Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (disclosure of sensitive material) applies in relation to proceedings under this Part as if, in each of the following provisions, each reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—
(a) section 6(2)(a), (7) and (9)(a) and (c);
(b) section 7(4)(a);
(c) section 8(1)(a);
(d) section 11(3);
(e) section 12(2)(a) and (b).”
“(4A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a power under sections 59 to 66 (Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure).”
“(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a power under sections 59 to 66 (Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure).”
“(za) sections 59 to 66 (Debarment proceedings and closed material procedure);”
“(ba) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”
“(a) applying it in relation to procurement carried out by contracting authorities under devolved Scottish procurement arrangements;
(a) disapplying it in relation to procurement carried out by devolved Scottish authorities under—
(i) reserved procurement arrangements,
(ii) devolved Welsh procurement arrangements, or
(iii) transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangements.”
“(za) the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (asp 12),”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 81.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 82 to 101.
“Power to disapply this Act in relation to procurement by NHS in England
(1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision for the purpose of disapplying any provision of this Act in relation to regulated health procurement.
(2) In this section—
“regulated health procurement” means the procurement of goods or services by a relevant authority that is subject to provision made under section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006 (procurement of healthcare services etc for the health service in England), whether or not that provision is in force;
“relevant authority” has the meaning given in that section.”
(da) section 52 (key performance indicators);”
(la) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”
“(ua) section 123(6) (exclusion of devolved Welsh authorities);”
“(ca) section 52 (key performance indicators);”
(ha) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”
“(ca) section 52 (key performance indicators);”
“(da) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);”
“(a) section 90 (treaty state suppliers: non-discrimination);
(b) section (Trade disputes) (trade disputes);
(c) section 111 (powers relating to procurement arrangements).”
“(3) A Minister of the Crown may not make specified regulations under subsection (2) without the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
(4) In this section, “specified regulations” means regulations to bring into force provisions regulating procurement by a devolved Welsh authority other than procurement under—
(a) a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(b) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement, but “specified regulations” does not include regulations to bring into force provisions in Part 7 (implementation of international obligations).
(5) In this section, “devolved Welsh authority” has the meaning given in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
(6) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that—
(a) Parts 1 to 6 and 8 to 13, or particular provisions in those Parts, so far as not already brought into force under subsection (2) do not regulate procurement by a devolved Welsh authority other than procurement under—
(i) a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(ii) a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement;
(b) existing legislation continues to regulate procurement by devolved Welsh authorities and procurement under devolved Welsh procurement arrangements.
(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may modify this Act.
(8) In this section—
“existing legislation” means any enactment, other than this Act or regulations made under this Act, that is passed or made before section 11 (covered procurement only in accordance with this Act) comes into force;
a reference to a provision regulating procurement includes a reference to a provision conferring a function exercisable in relation to procurement.”
“PART 2
SUBJECT-MATTER EXEMPTED CONTRACTS
General
3A (1) A contract is an exempted contract if it is—
(a) a contract of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule;
(b) a framework for the future award of contracts only of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule.
(2) But a Part 2-only contract is not an exempted contract if, on award of the contract, a contracting authority considers that—
(a) the goods, services or works representing the main purpose of the contract could reasonably be supplied under a separate contract, and
(b) that contract would not be a contract of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule.
(3) In considering whether goods, services or works could reasonably be supplied under a separate contract, a contracting authority may, for example, have regard to the practical and financial consequences of awarding more than one contract.
(4) In this paragraph “Part 2-only contract” means a contract of a kind listed in this Part of this Schedule that is not of a kind listed in Part 1 of this Schedule.”
“Commercial contracts of the City of London
37 A contract for the supply of goods, services or works to the Common Council of the City of London other than for the purposes of its functions as a local authority, police authority or port health authority.”
“National security
34A (1) A mandatory exclusion ground applies to a supplier in relation to contracts of a particular description if an appropriate authority determines that the supplier or a connected person—
(a) poses a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom, and
(b) would pose such a threat in relation to public contracts of that description.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) the reference to an appropriate authority is a reference to the appropriate authority that is considering whether the exclusion ground applies;
(b) the reference to a particular description includes, for example, a description by reference to—
(i) the goods, services or works being supplied;
(ii) the location of the supply;
(iii) the contracting authority concerned.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) applies only for the purpose of an appropriate authority’s functions under sections 59 to 66 (debarment), and cannot otherwise be relied on by a contracting authority when considering whether a supplier is an excluded supplier under section 57(1)(a).”
“(d) paragraph 34A (threat to national security).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 102.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 102B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“Involvement in forced organ harvesting
14A (1) A discretionary exclusion ground applies to a supplier if a decisionmaker determines that the supplier or a connected person has been, or is, involved in—
(a) forced organ harvesting, or
(b) dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting.
(2) “Forced organ harvesting” means killing a person without their consent so that their organs may be removed and transplanted into another person.””
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 103 and 104.
““event” means a conviction, decision, ruling, failure or other event by virtue of which a discretionary exclusion ground would apply to a supplier;”
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, before we begin the next item of business, I wish to make a brief statement on security. Noble Lords will have seen media reports yesterday about a security issue relating to the Chinese state and access to Parliament. I understand that the Metropolitan Police have now confirmed that two men were arrested in March on suspicion of offences relating to espionage, and that they are on police bail until early October.
As you know, we do not typically discuss the details of security issues on the Floor of the House, for reasons which are well understood. However, I wish to reassure noble Lords that Parliament follows the same vetting procedures as the Government, the issues raised in media stories are being addressed, and that the House administration is working closely and effectively with other relevant authorities. The extremely small number of people who needed to know about this issue were immediately briefed on a strictly confidential basis, given the national security sensitivity of this matter. Security arrangements are kept under review at all times, in order to deal with evolving threats.
Ahead of the statement repeat by the Lord Privy Seal, I remind all noble Lords of the importance of not discussing security issues on the Floor of the House. This is particularly important in this ongoing and sensitive case, where commenting on the identities of those alleged to be involved, engaging in speculation about the case, or discussing other details runs a serious risk of prejudicing any future prosecutions. If any noble Lords have security concerns, they are of course welcome to raise them outside of this Chamber with me or with the Parliamentary Security Department.
Security Update
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on claims relating to an ongoing counterterrorism police investigation that were reported in the Sunday Times yesterday, Sunday 10 September. The story alleged that two individuals, including a parliamentary researcher, had been arrested on charges of conducting espionage on behalf of China.
These are serious allegations, and it is right that they are being thoroughly investigated by the police and relevant agencies. We must not hamper their work or prejudice any future legal processes by what we say today—as I believe, Mr Speaker, you said at the beginning of today’s proceedings. As you would expect me to say, it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on any specific aspect of the active investigation itself. I would, however, point the House to what the Metropolitan police said in their own statement:
‘The investigation is being carried out by officers from the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, which has responsibility for investigations relating to allegations of Official Secrets Act and espionage-related offences’.
Of course, any decision on whether to proceed with a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, and related legislation, would be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.
It remains an absolute priority for the Government to take all necessary steps to protect the United Kingdom from any foreign state activity which seeks to undermine our national security, prosperity and democratic values. The Government have been clear that China represents a systemic challenge to the United Kingdom and to our values. That has been evidenced in China’s continued disregard for universal human rights and international commitments in Xinjiang, its erasure of dissenting voices and stifling of opposition under its new national security law in Hong Kong, and disturbing reports of Chinese coercion and intimidation in the South China Sea. We are clear-eyed about that challenge, and we must be able to look the Chinese in the eye and call out unacceptable behaviour directly, just as our Prime Minister was able to do this with Premier Li at the G20 summit in New Delhi this weekend—an approach that has also been taken consistently by our Five Eyes allies.
Actions speak louder than words, and that is why I took the decision to instruct departments to cease deployment of all surveillance equipment subject to China’s national intelligence law from sensitive government sites in November last year. It is one of the reasons why I banned TikTok from government devices; the Government investigated and called out the so-called Chinese overseas police service stations and, as my right honourable friend the Security Minister set out in a Statement to this House in June, instructed the Chinese embassy to close them; we significantly reduced Chinese involvement in the UK’s civil nuclear sector, including taking ownership of China’s stake in the Sizewell C nuclear power project; and, as Digital Secretary, I took the action to ban Huawei from our 5G networks.
This afternoon the Procurement Bill is being debated in the other place. The Bill will include national security debarment provisions that will enable us to act when we see malign influence in our public procurement. In taking this approach, we are aligned with our Five Eyes allies and other G7 partners—indeed, every single G7 partner.
The UK will deploy, again, an aircraft carrier to the Indo-Pacific in 2025; we have announced AUKUS, a new security partnership that will promote a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and stable; and we will work with Italy and Japan through the global combat air programme to adapt and respond to the security threats of the future, through an unprecedented international aerospace coalition.
These Houses of Parliament stand as a monument to the freedoms of expression and belief that underpin our values, but just as these institutions have provided the paradigm for so many modern democracies, there are still those who fear such freedoms, and who seek to undermine them and to interfere in our society. We maintain constant vigilance in our efforts to understand and root out that interference, and we will always take action to address it, whatever its source.
In 2022, the Government established the Defending Democracy Taskforce, a group that works to co-ordinate across Government to protect the integrity of our democracy from threats of foreign interference. It is engaging across government, with Parliament, the UK’s intelligence community, the devolved Administrations, local authorities, the private sector and civil society on the full range of threats facing our democratic institutions. Those threats include any foreign interference in the electoral process, disinformation, physical and cyber threats to democratic institutions and those who represent them, foreign interference in public offices, political parties and our universities, and transnational repression in the United Kingdom.
Earlier this year, Parliament passed the National Security Act, which has overhauled legislation applicable to espionage, sabotage and any persons acting for foreign powers against the safety and interest of the United Kingdom. The measures in the Act will enable our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of modern-day threats, including threats from China. New offences in the Act will enable the disruption of illegitimate influence conducted for, or on behalf of, foreign states, whether designed to advance their interests or to harm the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Government will do whatever it takes to protect our national security and this nation’s democratic institutions, which have stood for centuries as a beacon of liberty—from wherever the threat may come.
I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement in a timely way on the same day as it was made in the other place. I have often said from this Dispatch Box that the first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, but, when you look at it, it is more than that. In doing so, we must ensure that we uphold the integrity of our democracy and values.
I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House can recall where they were when we heard the news of the attacks on the twin towers, 22 years ago today. It is an appropriate time to recognise and pay tribute to the work of the intelligence and security agencies, who work alongside the police and other public sector organisations. I thank them for their work to protect us, in which they face unprecedented challenges and risks. Those risks are evolving in size, volatility and complexity. Security threats now appear through threats to our economy and technological systems, at our borders and through interference in our democracy. It is a huge challenge, and our security response must evolve to ensure that it is cohesive, comprehensive and able to adjust to face the changing nature of those threats.
In the last week, we have heard of two serious security issues: the escape from prison of a man facing charges for terrorism and the serious allegations of espionage on behalf of China. The police, intelligence agencies and justice system have our support in carrying out their investigations and should be left to do so. That also means that we have to be honest about the challenges faced and mistakes made; we have to recognise where there are gaps and take action to address them.
The Lord Privy Seal will understand that there is some incredulity that a man suspected of terrorism was able to escape from a category B prison under a van. It is extraordinary that he was in a category B prison—HMP Wandsworth—in the first place, that he had access to an area from which he could escape, and that it was not immediately noticed that he had absconded. I doubt that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to answer questions on this matter today, but I am sure that he recognises the importance of those questions that need to be investigated. Can he say whether the review into the security status of national security prisoners has been completed?
In response to the arrests made for espionage, there are questions about the actions the Government are taking to combat the threats posed by other states which seek to interfere in our democracy. MI5 issued an alert about Chinese attempts to influence Parliament 20 months ago. Our security services have long warned about interference in our democracy and in our elections, and there have been previous alerts and warnings about foreign actors seeking to penetrate parliamentary security. Can the Lord Privy Seal say anything about the actions they are taking in response to those specific warnings, and are they observed across government by both Ministers and those in their departments?
The Lord Speaker mentioned it in his introduction, but I ask the Lord Privy Seal to clarify whether the two men who have been arrested, and, I understand, charged with espionage, have been released on bail.
MI5 has also warned about commercial espionage from China, cyber risks and the threat to supply chains. The Intelligence and Security Committee has noted the Government’s lack of a long-term strategy towards China and is currently waiting for a response to the report it published in July. Can the Lord Privy Seal say anything more today about the specific threat posed by China? Can he more specifically say when the Government’s response to the ISC report will be published?
We must be able to work with China on key issues, such as climate change, but at the same time we must protect our national security and oppose attempts to infiltrate our democracy. In your Lordships’ House, we on the Labour Benches introduced an amendment to the National Security Bill to create stronger checks on donations to political parties which would have closed a loophole that allows shell companies to be used to hide political donations. The Government opposed that amendment. Can the Lord Privy Seal explain why, and will the Government now reconsider their position?
We know that the threats are not limited to China. For example, we saw the attack from the Russians in Salisbury, and we know there have been further cyberattacks and misinformation campaigns. In response to the shocking and terrible attacks on 9/11, the then Labour Government created a comprehensive strategy in response to state threats to national security. The UK counterterrorism strategy Contest established new links between the counterterrorism police, intelligence agencies and our public services, with the Home Office and the Government at the centre at the helm. The scale of the response that is needed today is certainly no less than that which was needed 22 years ago.
We are committed to extending this approach, if we are fortunate enough to be in government, by creating an equivalent strategy today to deal with such state threats. I can assure the Lord Privy Seal that the Government would have our support if they were to commit to introducing such a strategy and response now. I am not asking him to answer that at the Dispatch Box today, but will he commit to take this back to his Cabinet colleagues and report back to your Lordships’ House?
I end where I started. Nothing is more important in government than ensuring the safety, security and well-being of citizens. To fulfil that obligation, we need the right policies, strategies and collaborations. If we are to protect our democracy, we need to have a strategy in place, but we also need our citizens to have confidence in our democracy if they are to properly and effectively participate in it. This should be a joint endeavour across all parties and both Houses, and I hope the Lord Privy Seal will be able today to reassure us on the actions the Government are taking, and commit to going forward on this in a way that protects our democracy and security and unites the country, rather than creating division.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, there are two distinct but related aspects to this Statement. The first relates to the arrest of two people on charges of conducting espionage on behalf of China. The second relates more generally to our posture towards the security risks which China poses to the UK.
On the charges, I fully understand why it is inappropriate to comment at this stage. However, I confess to be bemused as to the nature of the spying which the parliamentary researcher might have undertaken. According to media reports, one of his crimes seems to be to have organised regular drinks sessions at a Westminster pub. This may not be a meritorious activity but it is hardly a serious offence. I think everybody will be fascinated to discover, if charges are pursued, exactly what kind of secrets the parliamentary researcher might have had access to. But for today, we must simply compose our souls in patience until further details of any charges emerge.
There is the more serious question of whether parliamentarians should have been told about the arrests at an earlier stage, so that they could take particular care in their dealings with China and Chinese entities. It is not clear when the Home Secretary and Prime Minister were aware of this case and why they decided to remain silent about it with parliamentary colleagues. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader can enlighten us.
The broader issue which this case exemplifies relates to our overall posture towards China. The Statement says that the Government believe that China presents a systemic challenge to our values. It lists a number of actions which they have taken to counter these challenges, but it fails to convince. In July, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee issued an excoriating report on China which said that the Government do not have a “clear strategy” on China and have not devoted sufficient resources to tackling the threat that it posed. The actions listed in today’s Statement do not constitute such a strategy. The Government should be making protecting our democracy a national security priority—something, incidentally, which they have already consistently failed to do in respect of Russia—and accept the recommendations of the ISC’s China report.
More generally, the Government’s record on standing up to China is weak. From the genocide against the Uighurs to Hong Kong, and from Taiwan to interference in our democracy, the Government have failed to take China seriously. The Prime Minister may have meetings in Delhi with his Chinese counterpart, but the suspicion is that he is more interested in trade, rather than these broader concerns.
Developing a clear overall approach to China should now be an urgent priority. One specific question which such a strategy must cover is the extent to which we designate China formally as a security threat. The Prime Minister originally claimed that China was such a threat during the Conservative leadership contest—and on this we agree—but since then, he has back-pedalled. The spying case illustrates the broad challenge which China now poses to the UK, yet the Government have failed to take Chinese interference seriously. They surely must now do so.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the general tone of the response. It is invidious to choose, but although I am grateful for the response of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I am particularly grateful for the very statesmanlike tone of the noble Baroness. I of course underline her tribute to the work of the Security Service, and indeed all the law enforcement services. On the day of 9/11, I was occupying the office which is now that of the Lord Convener, and I remember vividly watching what was going on in a position of disbelief. We must support their work, which sometimes, of its very nature—often, perhaps normally—has to be done on a confidential and secret basis. I think all noble Lords understand that matters cannot be avowed and addressed in detail while cases are ongoing.
I heard what the noble Baroness said about the prison escape and, fortunately, the individual concerned was recaptured—after I had had a sleepless night as the police helicopters circled over Richmond Park. I did not resent that at all; it was essential that that man be retaken.
The Lord Chancellor certainly said that these matters would be looked into. I shall not expand on that; nor would I want to anticipate where the examination of those events might lead. I will make sure that the Lord Chancellor is made aware of her comments on that.
On the question of MI5’s alerts and concerns, of course we are concerned about China. I thought a disappointing aspect of the response from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was that he rather belittled the range of action taken by this Government in relation to China. I repeated that in the Statement and do not wish to weary the House by repeating it again but a look at Hansard will see the significant actions we have taken, which, in addition to those in the Statement, include reducing Chinese involvement in the UK’s civil nuclear sector by taking control and ownership of China’s stake in the Sizewell C project. We have also passed the National Security Act, which I referred to in the Statement.
The director-general of MI5—since MI5 was referred to specifically—called this
“a game changing update to our powers”.
Those are his public words. He said:
“We now have a modern set of laws to tackle today’s threats”.
These will give law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and updated tools to deter, detect and disrupt foreign influence, including a foreign influence registration scheme that criminalises those acting covertly for states that pose the greatest threat to the UK.
There were various comments and I have to say that not everything said in this House derived from newspaper reports was entirely accurate. But I shall not be led to comment on what was or was not. I think all noble Lords will understand that this is an ongoing investigation and it is extremely important that we do not jeopardise any proceedings that may follow.
I was asked about the response to the ISC report. I think it may not be the first time I have been asked that very legitimate question. I was told that I was permitted to say “very shortly” in response. I am now telling everybody not to betray secrets but I did say that I could not say that again and was assured that “very shortly” really does mean “very shortly” in this case. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe will have heard those comments.
Information to Members of Parliament is again a matter for the relevant authorities. I shall not go down that road or say who knew what when. Noble Lords will have heard the Lord Speaker assure the House that:
“The extremely small number of people who needed to know about this issue were immediately briefed on a strictly confidential basis”.
That was held to be the responsible approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that our approach to China does not convince. The noble Baroness also said that we must have a serious response to China. I believe that was implicit in the Statement and explicit in the Statement made by my right honourable friend in the other place. I underline what he said and what the House feels: China is a country that—sadly—has fundamentally different values from us and therefore represents a systemic challenge to the world order.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that China’s behaviour is increasingly concerning. It is becoming more authoritarian at home and more assertive overseas. We are alert to that challenge and I would say, as I often say in this House, how much we feel fortified by the support across the Chamber. We must take the necessary steps to stand up for our values and protect our interests.
On the other hand, China is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It is the second largest economy in the world and has an impact on almost every global issue of importance to the UK. Our overall approach, therefore, must be rooted in our national interest and co-ordinated with like-minded partners, as I referred to with the AUKUS arrangements, the long-standing Five Eyes arrangements and the work on a new aerial provision with Italy and Japan. We will go on working with like-minded partners. We are sending the aircraft carrier presence to the East again to assure our allies there that we will go on working with them to maintain a stable international order. The integrated review refresh set out a new approach and measures to respond to the increasingly concerning actions of Chinese authorities.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that it is an epoch-defining challenge for our country and the world. We have been clear that China remains the biggest long-term question and threat to the UK’s economic security, but it is not smart foreign policy to reduce our entire approach to China to one word. Our approach should be measured in our actions rather than our words. We in the Government are confident that, with the support of the party opposite and others, we are taking the right actions to keep the United Kingdom safe and prosperous.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that I, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and our families, have been sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party for, among other things, speaking out against the treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, the atrocities committed in Tibet, the threats almost daily to Taiwan and the terrible destruction of democracy and incarceration of lawmakers and pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong, including the British citizen, Jimmy Lai. Here at home, we have spoken—as many have today in the House in the preceding debates—about issues such as forced organ harvesting and the surveillance state that comes through the installation of cameras by companies such as Hikvision and Dahua, in which the noble Lord himself has taken such a keen interest.
In the light of all that, the Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear me reiterate a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. In another place earlier today, my good friend Tim Loughton MP, who is also one of those who has been sanctioned, expressed surprise that those of us who had been put in this invidious position were not told anything about the activities that were said to be taking place across the Parliamentary Estate. Will the Leader look at that issue again and have some regard to those who obviously have a direct interest in this?
The foreign influence registration scheme contains a power to place a foreign power in the enhanced tier. That will require parliamentary approval. What is the proposed timetable? Can it be accelerated? Will the Chinese Communist Party regime be on that list? The Leader referred to the “very shortly” assurance that he was asked to give concerning the excellent report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, which says that China has penetrated
“every sector of the UK’s economy”.
This House’s Select Committee on International Relations and Defence has also said that China is not a strategic competitor but a threat. Although it cannot be reduced to one word, as the Leader of the House said, surely it is time for us to schedule a debate. I hope that, as soon as the response from the Government is forthcoming, we will have in government time the chance to discuss the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report, along with our own reports.
Finally, will the Leader urgently consider establishing a small Joint Committee of both Houses to review infiltration, espionage, the subversion of our democratic institutions, the effects on places such as our universities, and these attempts to silence those of us who have been sanctioned by the CCP and our families?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the persistence and courage of the noble Lord—I will call him my noble friend—Lord Alton in his long-standing witness against the brutalities that he has described and the assault on democracy; for example, I refer to the oppression that we have seen in Hong Kong. I also deprecate, as the Government do, the absurd concept of people in your Lordships’ House and the other place being sanctioned—and by whom? The Chinese Communist Party. By what right do people who do not understand our freedoms in this place and our right to speak purport to sanction or threaten us?
We are very alert to some of the activities, which is why the so-called police service stations that perhaps should never have been allowed to grow in the first place have been closed down. We do not assume that they are being closed down; we are checking that they have been closed down.
The noble Lord asked specific questions about the FISA provisions, including timing and scale. If I may, I will be advised on that and write to the noble Lord, but I can say that those powers are there. I quoted the director-general of MI5 saying how welcome they are; I can assure your Lordships that we will pursue them.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, this is an unusual situation. We are dealing with a matter of great sensitivity. There is a prosecution currently ongoing and there are national security issues; a review of parliamentary security is also ongoing, as the Lord Chancellor mentioned in the media yesterday.
I have given notice of my concern to the Lord Privy Seal and my noble friend the Cabinet Office Minister by way of email; I have also communicated previously with the Lord Speaker about it. I am talking about the current practice, which is well known to all noble Lords—this is not a personal point at all—of noble Lords’ spouses and partners being issued with security passes without any security vetting. Due to the overlap between these issues, which is a rare circumstance, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether this review gives us an opportunity to think about whether we need to reconsider that policy in light of the matters raised, particularly the safety of our staff and the fact that we are well aware of how clever and wily our enemy is. We need to make sure that any loophole or avenue is closed off.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving advance notice. I am not sure how helpful that means I can be. Obviously, although I have the indescribable honour of being the Leader of your Lordships’ House, a review of security vetting in Parliament is a matter for Parliament and the authorities here. I am sure that they will have taken note of what my noble friend says, but the Parliamentary Security Department is responsible for the delivery of security vetting in Parliament. Like all security policies, we expect this to be kept under constant review; I hope that will be informed.
I did not answer the point from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about people being informed about what had happened. I said that I had nothing to add to what was said in the Lord Speaker’s Statement about the extremely small number of people who needed to know being briefed immediately.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I fully endorse all the comments made by my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench. I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy; it involves Members of both Houses, some of whom have been mentioned in the course of press reporting on the case that we are discussing—or not discussing. We are fully aware of the fact that certain countries, such as China, are engaged in what I have heard described as the hoovering up of as much information and intelligence as possible for purposes of their own that may be a threat to us.
The Statement refers to the Official Secrets Act and related legislation. Do I take it from the Leader of the House’s answers so far that the Government take the view that the National Security Act now provides a much more appropriate legal framework for considering a case of this kind? Secondly, we now know of events that took place as long ago as March, but that have only become widely known this week. Is there any connection between this and the fact that the Prime Minister chose to raise with Premier Li at the G20 summit the case that has given rise to this Statement?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister will have an opportunity to discuss the G20 Statement tomorrow, when I fear that your Lordships will suffer the pain of me answering again from this Dispatch Box. Perhaps I can then say a little more, if asked, about the engagement with Premier Li. However, I assure the House that the Prime Minister has certainly addressed the substance of Chinese activity and China’s efforts to undermine our democratic procedures so far as they are concerned.
On the question of the Official Secrets Act and the National Security Act, I would not wish to relate those to the ongoing investigation and was not seeking to do so. Obviously, I referred to the National Security Act, as did the director-general of MI5, as a further building block in the tools we have. That was in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. So far as the current investigation is concerned, the Met has said that due to the active and ongoing nature of the investigation, it will not provide further details at this stage. It would not be right for me to comment on these reports. A statement was put out by the Metropolitan Police; I refer noble Lords to that statement.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring that I was previously a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, although that is not a reason for urging the Minister to re-read the report, since it contains a lot of conclusions that are entirely relevant to our discussion this evening.
I direct his attention to paragraph 7, which carries the description “whole-of-state threat”. The committee concludes that the Government’s policy has enabled China
“to advance its commercial, science and technology, and industrial goals in order to gain a strategic advantage”.
Given what we know of China’s tactics, why are we so surprised that there are now allegations of spying? Indeed, there would be surprise had there been no such allegation, given China’s previous record. Respectfully, it seems that the Government should be not only responding to the contents of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report but implementing the various opportunities it identifies for putting a proper control over the activities of China against the United Kingdom. It is not a matter of “as soon as we can”; it should be a matter for immediate implementation.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the committee’s report is obviously of great significance and importance, and the Government regard it in that way. I have nothing to add to what I have said about hoping that the government response will come very shortly. Some people suspect that I am part of the usual channels. but I am not going to say from this Dispatch Box whether there will be a debate on this subject. However, at some point Parliament will require that we have a chance to take stock.
The only thing I would say—this is a statement of fact rather than a political point—is that if one goes back to the coalition years, when we shared time in government, the rhetoric was very different. Some of the facts on the ground were different. The nature of the Chinese regime has evolved since those times and the nature of our response is evolving. It is often easy to be wise after the event, but as my right honourable friend said in the Statement, we are very open-eyed about this and clearly recognise the nature, scale and uniqueness of the position of China, led by the Chinese Communist Party, with its ambitions, not all of them potentially pacific. We recognise that reality in the modern world and I hope that Parliament and the country as a whole will rise to that. Certainly, the Government will play their part.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. The reports this weekend and the allegations that have emerged are of great concern to the large and growing community of refugees, exiles and students from Hong Kong in the UK. This follows a few months after a bounty of 1 million Hong Kong dollars was put on the heads of eight activists around the world, three of whom live in the UK. What reassurance, services and support are the UK Government planning to provide to ensure that people know where to go if they have had a concerning, dangerous or worrying experience on social media or in person? The many students, particularly post-graduates, who might be studying issues around China, may be approached, perhaps innocently or not so innocently, by someone who may be an agent of the Chinese state. Do the Government have advice for them on what steps they should take to make sure they are able to act appropriately in that situation to protect themselves and the rest of us?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I believe she will acknowledge that the action of Her Majesty’s Government, as it then was, in opening the door to so many people from Hong Kong, which was supported across the House, was the right and wise thing to do—I hope that she will recognise that. In that region we are seeking to be active to constrain China as it seeks to extend its malign influence, and I know from her background that she will welcome the AUKUS arrangement—I am very disappointed to see her shaking her head, because that is a reaction that might be shared in quarters that we are now discussing.
The Hong Kong bounties are intolerable and unacceptable. Anybody who receives any sort of threat should let that be known to the authorities; we take that extraordinarily seriously. We will not tolerate any attempts by China to intimidate and silence individuals in the UK or overseas. The UK will always defend the universal right to freedom of expression—why are we here in this Chamber?—and stand up for those who are targeted. We strongly object to the national security law that China imposed on Hong Kong, including its extraterritorial reach, which was in breach of the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration. We suspended the extradition agreement with Hong Kong on 20 July 2020 in response to the imposition of the national security law by Beijing. I assure your Lordships that we will give the most vigorous support to those intimidated by China who come from the remarkable territory of Hong Kong.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Statement, with which I am obviously at one, as I did the Front Benches and the call for a renewed strategy. I propose that procedures of verification and enhanced vetting be considered. As a matter of course, and for the purpose of disclosure and information, is the Minister aware that the press have been referring to a spy
“at the heart of power”?
In doing so, they were referring to Parliament. I was concerned, and ask what explanation there is, that a Russian spy now expelled from the UK—and so presumably known about—was at a high-level reception, including ambassadors from a range of countries friendly to the UK, at which I was also present. That person was expelled shortly after the meeting to which I refer. I bring this to the attention of the Leader only so that all these matters be considered by the relevant authorities as we clean up what is going on.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to comment on press reports. It is unfortunate that I am not the most regular reader of the press—much to its annoyance. All I say in response to the noble Viscount is that this country is always vigilant against espionage threats from whatever quarter. Over many decades, there has been a record of incidents of bad actors being expelled from the United Kingdom, and I am sure there will be more in the future.