House of Commons
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The Government are committed to investing in our police to drive down crime across Wales. That includes an extra 1,127 police officers for Welsh forces under the police uplift programme. Approximately £9 million has been allocated to Welsh forces through the safer streets fund, targeting neighbourhood crime, violence against women and girls, and antisocial behaviour.
Anna McMorrin
Antisocial behaviour has a devastating impact on communities across Wales and in Cardiff North. My constituent, Sarah, suffered a miscarriage due to the stress of repeated antisocial behaviour. She was not entitled to any support, because this Government consider those who suffer from antisocial behaviour to be second-class victims. My amendment to change that in the Victims and Prisoners Bill was rejected by this Government. How can they claim to prevent crime while failing to support victims?
David T. C. Davies
I assure the hon. Lady that victims of antisocial behaviour are as much victims of crime as anyone else. I absolutely stand with victims of antisocial behaviour; it is a matter that we take very seriously indeed. I have not seen the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady, but she must be aware that this Government have brought in longer prison sentences for the most serious crimes, and made it easier for the police to arrest people carrying out crime—matters that the Labour party has voted against.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The chief constable of Dyfed–Powys police recently told the Welsh Affairs Committee that Dyfed-Powys police force now has more police officers than at any time in its history, following the UK Government’s decision to invest in more officers and increase the local number of officers by 154. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Dyfed-Powys police force on reaching that milestone, and on all the hard work it does in helping to make Pembrokeshire one of the safest parts of the country?
David T. C. Davies
My right hon. Friend will be as pleased as I am that the Government have delivered on their 2019 manifesto commitment to recruit 20,000 extra police officers, and I commend the work of police officers in Dyfed-Powys police. I had the privilege and honour to go to one of the passing out ceremonies recently, and I commend the work that it does.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
It is not just antisocial behaviour that is wreaking havoc across Wales. Shoplifting in Wales is also soaring, and in the year to March 2023 it was up by 31%. Why will the Secretary of State’s Government not adopt Labour’s plan to scrap the minimum £200-worth of stolen goods rule, which was introduced by his Government in 2014 and allows gangs of shoplifters to escape punishment and puts shop workers at risk?
David T. C. Davies
I agree with the hon. Lady that shoplifting is a serious offence, and repeat shoplifters and those who go out in organised gangs must be dealt with by the full force of the law. That is why I welcome the fact that this Government have brought in longer prison sentences for people carrying out the most serious offences. I do not understand why the hon. Lady will not join the Government in supporting longer prison sentences. Perhaps she should talk to her colleagues in the Welsh Government who seem to be against building any extra prison places.
Jo Stevens
The Secretary of State knows that the prison estate across Wales is not just full, but that overcrowding is significantly above safe limits. With his Government having to commandeer police cells, with judges being told to jail fewer people, and with criminals—including those convicted of assault—being released early on the instruction of his Justice Secretary, how can the Welsh public have any faith that they will be protected?
David T. C. Davies
The prison population has increased as a direct result of policies that the Government have implemented, to ensure that those committing the most serious offences spend more time in prison. That is something that the hon. Lady should be supportive of. She needs to talk to her colleagues in the Welsh Government, who have stated clearly in writing that they are completely against building any prison places. This Government are building emergency prison places and filling up prisons, because people who commit serious offences deserve to go to prison. The Labour party in the Welsh Government is saying clearly that it is totally opposed to building any extra prisons anywhere.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
This Government are committed to strengthening the economy of north Wales and north-west England. We have recently announced that we will invest £36 billion in Network North, including £1 billion to electrify the north Wales main line. That will improve connectivity across the region, bringing many parts of north Wales within one hour of Manchester and Liverpool by rail.
Scott Benton
The announcement of the electrification of the north Wales main line will help to improve transport links between this region and the north-west of England, supporting economic growth, tourism and jobs across both areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that residents across Wales and my constituents in Blackpool will see real improvements in their local transport infrastructure as part of their share of this £36 billion that is available?
Dr Davies
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. North Wales often feels overlooked by the Welsh Government. Indeed, the Welsh Government have said that the electrification of the north Wales line is not their priority. Just as it was Conservative Governments who built key elements of the A55 in the 1980s and 1990s, we now see a Conservative Government investing further in the infrastructure and prospects of north Wales and north-west England.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)
Connectivity is key to underpinning that economic growth, and the railway line between north Wales, through my constituency in St Helens and on to Manchester should epitomise that, but unfortunately it does not seem to be working at the minute. It is frequently overcrowded, and there are cancellations at the Manchester end and at the Chester end. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Department for Transport as well as Transport for Wales, so that we might make some progress and make sure that my constituents can get to work and this line can deliver economic growth for the north-west and north Wales?
Dr Davies
Of course, improving rail is not simply about the rail infrastructure; it is also about the train operating companies and how they operate. The hon. Gentleman is right that Transport for Wales has struggled from time to time. I can reassure him that I do have discussions with it. In fact, I am also meeting the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) later today, when I will reiterate those concerns.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Strong economic links are dependent on the Government actually having an economic plan, but the Conservatives’ track record speaks for itself. They cancelled the electrification of the main line to Swansea, they are spending half a billion pounds but still potentially making up to 3,000 steelworkers redundant and their pitiful semiconductor strategy does not even give us a bit part on the world stage. Why should anyone believe that their latest promises made for north Wales at a desperate party conference are worth the fag packet they are written on?
Dr Davies
I welcome the hon. Member to her position. She shares Welsh lessons with me, and I hope she will continue to do so. I urge her to be somewhat more positive about the £1 billion that has been announced for infrastructure development in north Wales by means of the electrification. Also, in terms of the steel industry at Port Talbot, the half a billion pounds has saved many jobs and means that decarbonisation can occur.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
HS2 is
“going to benefit Wales, it’s going to benefit people in North Wales who will benefit from better access at Crewe to London.”
That was the Secretary of State’s central argument for withholding billions of pounds from Wales by claiming that HS2 benefits us. Now that the link at Crewe is another casualty of Tory chaos, will Wales Office Ministers stay true to their own logic and urge the Treasury to class HS2 as English-only?
Dr Davies
As the right hon. Lady knows, rail infrastructure is not devolved. I would argue that investment in Great Britain’s rail infrastructure is of value to those in north Wales and the rest of Wales. Furthermore, HS2 is an important connection to the west midlands from London. Passengers from London to north Wales are likely to still use that.
Liz Saville Roberts
We all know that the money that has been committed is illustrative. In a major boost to Plaid Cymru’s campaign, the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales has proposed devolving the Crown estate and reinvesting profits in communities through a sovereign wealth fund. The commission criticised the current system of wealth transfer from the poorest country in Britain to Westminster as “illogical and bizarre”. Whose side is the Minister on: Welsh communities or a system that extracts our natural wealth?
Dr Davies
We have had this discussion on previous occasions in various settings, but I would argue that the Crown estate allows this country to share risks and opportunities that it deals with. It does a fantastic job and I simply do not agree.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
Of course, I work within the NHS in north-east Wales and west Cheshire and see the stark realities of the disparity in healthcare services between the two. It is concerning that the Welsh Government have missed their target to eliminate two-year waits in most specialties and that more than 27,000 patients have been waiting over two years for treatment in Wales, compared with circa 280 in the whole of England. The Health Secretary has offered to consider requests from the Welsh Government to use alternate providers in England to reduce waiting lists and the distress that they bring.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
With the Welsh Labour Government facing cuts to their NHS as a decision of their own, does the Minister not find it extraordinary that they are looking at spending £122 million on new politicians and £33 million on a blanket 20 mph speed limit that nobody voted for in Wales?
Dr Davies
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is scandalous that the Labour Welsh Government are prioritising spending on more politicians in Cardiff Bay as well as an unpopular 20 mph default speed limit. Their decisions mean less funding for the NHS, education and other important devolved services. They have the potential instead to invest in important capital projects such as the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Rhyl. They must re-examine their agenda.
Robin Millar
It gets worse: the UK Government have twice offered the Welsh Labour Government help in reducing patient waiting lists for important medical procedures, but neither offer has been taken up. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that, in fact, that offer still stands and that patients in Wales who are stuck and suffering on waiting lists have not been forgotten by the UK Government?
Dr Davies
Having spoken with the Department of Health and Social Care, I can confirm that the offer still stands. My hon. Friend will find it of interest to know that the Labour Welsh Government did write in response to the latest offer several weeks after that offer was made. Unfortunately, the Minister did not confirm whether they would accept the offer. In the interests of tens of thousands of patients, I strongly encourage them to do so.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues, including the cost of living. The Government have made certain that the state pension, benefits and the minimum wage have all risen in line with inflation. Last winter, the Government’s energy support schemes saw them paying about half the average fuel bills for homeowners across the United Kingdom.
Chris Elmore
The Bridgend food bank and the Baobab Bach food pantry are running out of food. My constituents in Ogmore and those across the Bridgend borough literally cannot afford to pay for the weekly shop. What work is the Secretary of State doing to tackle the significant access-to-food crisis that is impacting constituents in the Bridgend county borough and right across Wales?
David T. C. Davies
As I have already mentioned, the Government have made sure that pensions, benefits and the minimum wage have risen in line with inflation. There have been other payments as well, with £900 to households on benefits, £300 to pensioners and £100 to those in households where there have been disabilities. The Government have made certain at all times to prioritise the least well off. May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman should listen to the earlier questions and suggest that the Welsh Government stop spending money on extra politicians and put that back into communities where it is needed?
Patricia Gibson
Polling of 2,000 people by Public Health Wales found that about eight in 10 Welsh citizens are either worried or very worried about the rising cost of living, with almost half saying that it will have a negative impact on their mental health. Similar concerns have been expressed in Scotland. What consideration have the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues given to the SNP’s call for a £400 energy rebate as winter approaches?
David T. C. Davies
As I said, in addition to the Government’s priority on supporting the least well-off and the fact that the Government paid around half of people’s energy bills during the last winter, we will continue to prioritise those who are having difficulties. If the hon. Lady is really worried about a cost of living crisis and the impact on energy, she will do well to revisit her party’s policy of getting rid of the oil and gas industry in the UK, including in Scotland—something that would cost 200,000 jobs and have a terrible impact on energy prices for homeowners across the United Kingdom.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Wrexham-Flintshire investment zone bid could bring huge benefits to my region, including more and better-paid jobs. An investment zone requires collaboration between the Welsh and UK Governments. There is a possibility that the UK Government could support two zones in Wales, but the Welsh Government have yet to give me a commitment to a second zone. If they do, will the UK Government also commit?
David T. C. Davies
I can assure my hon. Friend that I have made a very strong case to Cabinet colleagues for two investment zones in Wales. She is right that we need the co-operation of the Welsh Labour Government. I suggest that she, and any Members who represent north Wales, write to the Welsh Labour Government’s economic development Minister and suggest that Welsh Government prioritise two investment zones for Wales. We would be delighted to work with them when they get around to doing that.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Our United Kingdom is stronger than ever. It is a testament to the strength of the Union that the UK Government have been able to support people across the country, including with £94 billion to respond to cost of living challenges.
Deidre Brock
At the Welsh Affairs Committee this morning, the First Minister Mark Drakeford blamed the UK Government for not giving adequate financial support to the Welsh Government in times of high inflation and a cost of living crisis. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much his Department is spending on promoting the UK Government in Wales? Why does he think that is a better use of taxpayers’ money than funding services for the people of Wales? I am happy to receive an answer by email if he does not have that information to hand.
David T. C. Davies
First, I can assure the hon. Lady that the Welsh Labour Government are receiving a record-breaking settlement of more than £18 billion, and 20% more per head to spend on public services than is spent in England. Perhaps the First Minister should explain why we have longer NHS waiting lists in Wales and why education standards are lower. As far as spending on public affairs and promotion is concerned, I can assure the hon. Lady that a far greater amount is spent by the Welsh Labour Government than is ever spent by the Wales Office. Frankly, the proof of the strength of the Union is demonstrated by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) has joined the Conservative and Unionist party, and she is very welcome.
Hywel Williams
I have raised the damaging effect of the UK’s Brexit on the port of Holyhead and the north Wales economy in this Chamber 26 times. Holyhead has been disadvantaged by the lack of a green lane for exports to Northern Ireland. In August, at last, His Majesty's Revenue and Customs confirmed to me that there will now be a green lane for goods travelling from Wales to Northern Ireland through Holyhead and the Republic. I emphasise, as a precaution, that this is not a freeport issue—the Secretary of State is very keen on that. Rather, what specifically is he doing to promote and enable those new procedures for Holyhead?
David T. C. Davies
I did not quite hear all that, but on the port in Ynys Môn, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take some comfort from the fact that the United Kingdom economy has grown more quickly outside the European Union than that of many nations that have remained in it. The Government have shown their absolute commitment to both north Wales and Ynys Môn through their development of a freeport project for the area and the announcement of £1 billion for electrification of the north Wales railway line, which will help to bring jobs and investment into north Wales.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Barry is Wales’s largest town, but it has been ignored by the Welsh Government for decades. It has significant regeneration challenges, like many places. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on awarding Barry towns regeneration status, but can he reassure me that that does not preclude Barry from benefiting from levelling up funding?
David T. C. Davies
Obviously, I welcome the announcement, but my right hon. Friend is far too modest, since he has been knocking on the door of the Wales Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for a very long time to demand extra funding for Barry. He makes a very strong case for that, and I assure him that the UK Government will continue to listen to him.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Cross-border transport links between Wales and England are a key part of the strength of the Union. Does my right hon. Friend agree that cross-border projects, such as the Pant and Llanymynech bypass and the longer term ambition to dual the A483-A5 passing through Clwyd South and North Shropshire, are vital?
David T. C. Davies
The United Kingdom Government are absolutely determined to support infrastructure projects in Wales. We have done so through the levelling-up funds. It will happen again through the shared prosperity fund and it has, of course, been happening through the growth deals. What we do need is a Welsh Labour Government that will support infrastructure. That is why I find it so disappointing that the Welsh Labour Government have ruled out building any new roads ever again. It worries me greatly that that is seen as a blueprint for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
The Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues, including energy costs. The Government spent nearly £40 billion protecting households and businesses from high energy bills over last winter, meaning that between October 2022 and June 2023, a typical household saw half of their energy bills paid for by the Government.
Tonia Antoniazzi
The Government did not listen to the renewable energy sector, which repeatedly warned them that the budget set for this year’s offshore wind auction was too low to attract bidders to develop offshore wind in the Celtic sea. Can the Minister tell the House why that advice was ignored, leading to not a single bid being made?
Dr James Davies
What I can tell the hon. Lady is that it is an issue of discussion that the Secretary of State and I are engaged with. We understand the importance of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea and it will progress in due course.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
No sensible person would oppose a 20 mph speed limit where there is a case to be made on the basis of safety outside hospitals, old people’s homes or schools, but the blanket decision by the Welsh Government, which has been opposed by over 460,000 signatories to the largest petition in the Senedd’s history, is deeply unpopular, deeply expensive and completely wrong.
David Duguid
Given that more than 450,000 people in Wales have signed an online petition against the Labour Welsh Government’s blanket 20 mph roll-out, does my right hon. Friend agree that devolved Administrations across the United Kingdom should listen to the people and the communities they serve, rather than their own narrow centralised agenda?
David T. C. Davies
I agree completely with what my hon. Friend says. The Welsh Labour Government need to listen to what people have said about this and they need to listen also to all those who are opposed to this ridiculous war on motorists, which is not just about a 20 mph speed limit but a block on any new roads being built and extra road charges.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say to Conservative Members that the hon. Member was in the middle of asking a question? It is disrespectful to your own side. You should think about what you are doing. People should wait. Just because you want to cheer somebody coming in. Do it at the right time. That is totally inappropriate.
Marco Longhi
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour likes to showcase Welsh Labour as its blueprint for the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State not agree that this is yet more evidence of its war against motorists wherever they are: Wales, Dudley North or the rest of the United Kingdom?
David T. C. Davies
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We need to be very careful of this blueprint for Britain, which includes a ban on new roads, a ban on meal deals, a tourism tax, road charges, over £100 million being spent on more politicians, a £1,600 minimum wage being paid to some asylum seekers and a ban on news channels in the Assembly that Senedd Members disagree with. That is not a blueprint for Britain; it is a recipe for disaster. I hope the people of Wales will take note and vote Conservative in the next election.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
The Government recognise that this is a concerning time for mortgage holders, especially those who are due to come to the end of a fixed deal in the immediate future. We are supporting borrowers who are struggling with their mortgage payments through the new mortgage charter. It sets out the standards that signatory lenders will adopt, including new flexibilities to help customers manage their mortgage payments over a short period.
David Linden
Throughout Scotland, people are paying the price of the Westminster-made cost of living crisis as a result of this Conservative Government and the actions of the Tories in crashing the economy last year. Will the Government bring forward that mortgage interest relief scheme for my constituents, and perhaps even for those in East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow?
Dr Davies
The Government have, of course, provided “support for mortgage interest” loans for those receiving income-related benefits, and the pre-action protocol helps to make repossessions less likely. That is in addition to the action that I have already outlined.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I know that the whole House will have been shocked by the scenes at Al-Ahli Hospital. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, we are working independently and with our allies to find out what has happened. I am sure that Members will raise further questions about this during today’s session.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Chris Law
May I associate myself, and the whole of my party here, with what has been said about the horrors and the unfolding tragedy of last night’s bombing of the hospital in Gaza?
The Rafah border crossing from besieged Gaza into Egypt has been hit by several Israeli airstrikes, causing absolute terror to those who urgently need the crossing to be open in order to escape. Nadia El-Nakla, an elected councillor in my city of Dundee and the wife of Scotland’s First Minister, has had to take calls from her parents Elizabeth and Maged, who, like all others trapped in Gaza, have been describing the horrors of death and indiscriminate killings everywhere. Members of Nadia’s family were hit yesterday by a rocket from a drone, and her mother was saying her final goodbyes this morning, adding:
“last night was the end for me, better if my heart stops and then I will be at peace, I can’t take another night.”
With military action intensifying and the death toll rising rapidly, the Prime Minister’s first responsibility must be to bring British citizens home. Can he please give his personal assurance that every single step is being taken to open the Rafah crossing, both for humanitarian aid and to enable UK nationals like Nadia’s family to flee?
The Prime Minister
The thoughts of everyone in the House will of course be with the families affected by what is happening in Israel and in Gaza, and I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance: we are doing everything in our power to ensure the safety of British nationals who are caught up in all this. That includes my calls with leaders across the region, particularly the conversations about opening the Rafah border crossing—which is why I made talking to President Sisi a priority last week—and we continue to engage in dialogue with both the Israelis and the Egyptians about the crossing.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, who has himself done so much over the years to fight antisemitism. The increase in the number of such incidents that we have seen over the past week is utterly sickening, and this Government will do whatever it takes to keep our Jewish community safe. We have provided an additional £3 million to support the Community Security Trust, we are working with the police to ensure that hate crime and the glorification of terror are met by the full force of the law, and under our existing immigration rules we have the power to cancel a person’s presence in the UK if it is not conducive to the public good. We will not tolerate this hatred—not in this country, not in this century.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Can I start by warmly welcoming my hon. Friend the new Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks)? The news last night of hundreds killed at the Baptist hospital in Gaza is incredibly distressing, but it is much worse for the people of Gaza. Their fear that there is no place of safety is profound. International law must be upheld, and that means hospitals and civilian lives must be protected. Last night the Foreign Secretary said that the UK will work with our allies to find out what has happened. I know that this only happened last night, but can the Prime Minister please tell us when he thinks he might be able to update the House on progress with that work?
The Prime Minister
I know that the whole House will have been shocked by the scenes at Al-Ahli Hospital. Any loss of innocent life is a dreadful tragedy and everyone will be thinking both of those who have lost their lives and of the families they leave behind. We should not rush to judgment before we have all the facts on this awful situation. Every Member will know that the words we say here have an impact beyond this House.
This morning, I met the National Security Adviser and the Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that our intelligence services have been rapidly analysing the evidence to independently establish the facts. We are not in a position at this point to say more than that, but I can tell him that we are working at pace and co-operating and collaborating with our allies on this issue as we look to get to the bottom of the situation. We will also continue all our efforts to get humanitarian aid into the region.
Keir Starmer
I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. The terrible news last night came as we are still mourning the terrorist attack on Israel last week, with Jews taken hostage, mutilated, slaughtered. Yesterday I met the families of some of the British hostages held by Hamas. Every minute of every hour of every day, they hope for good news but fear the worst. They know that the lives of their loved ones are in the hands of murderers. It is unimaginable agony. Israel has a right—a duty—to defend itself from Hamas, keep its people safe and bring the hostages home, but is it not clear that if Hamas had a single concern for human life, a single concern for the safety of the Palestinian people, they would never have taken these hostages, and that they should release them immediately?
The Prime Minister
It is important for us consistently to remember that Israel has suffered a shockingly brutal terrorist attack, and it is Hamas, and Hamas alone, who are responsible for this conflict. Our thoughts are rightly with those who have been taken hostage and their families. The distress they are feeling will be unimaginable for all those affected. I will be meeting some of the families and offering them all the support of the British Government to get their relatives home. We are working around the clock with our partners and allies to secure their freedom and, importantly, in among my other regional calls, I spoke specifically with the Emir of Qatar yesterday on this very issue, which we discussed at length. The Qatari Government are taking a lead in working intensely to help release hostages using their contacts in the region, and we are working closely with them to ensure the safe return of the British hostages.
Keir Starmer
Yesterday I also met charities with staff working in Gaza and heard their accounts of the harrowing humanitarian crisis: children fleeing their homes; hospitals barely able to function. The lights are going out, and the innocent civilians of Gaza are terrified that they will die in the darkness, out of sight. International law must always be followed. Hamas are not the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian people are not Hamas. Does the Prime Minister agree that medicines, food, fuel and water must get into Gaza immediately? This is an urgent situation, and innocent Palestinians need to know that the world is not just simply watching, but acting to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.
The Prime Minister
As I said on Monday, an acute humanitarian crisis is unfolding to which we must respond. It is right that we support the Palestinian people, because they are victims of Hamas too. That is why we have provided a further £10 million in humanitarian aid for people in the region, and we are working on pre-emptively moving aid and relief teams to Egypt, specifically to the el-Arish airfield. We are working with local partners like the Egyptian Red Crescent and the United Nations, primarily, and deploying Navy assets to the region, as well as exploring how we can support logistical requirements.
I have also raised the issue of humanitarian access, as a priority, in all my conversations with every leader in the region. We will continue to work with them to get aid to where it is needed as quickly as possible.
Keir Starmer
As has been alluded to, since Hamas’s terrorist attack our country has seen a disgusting rise in antisemitism: Jewish businesses attacked, Jewish schools marked with red paint and Jewish families hiding who they are. And we have seen an appalling surge in Islamophobia: racist graffiti, mosques forced to ramp up security, and British Muslims and Palestinians spoken to as if they are terrorists. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that every Member of this House has a duty to work in their constituency and across the country to say no to this hate and to ensure that every British Jew and every British Muslim knows they can live their life free from fear and free from discrimination here in their own country?
The Prime Minister
All of us in this House can play our part in stamping out those who seek to cause division and hate in our society. We will make sure that we continue funding the Community Security Trust and the equivalent protective security grant that protects mosques and other places of worship for the Islamic community in the UK. That funding was increased earlier this year. We will also remain in dialogue with the police to make sure they are aware of the full tools at their disposal to arrest those who perpetrate hate crime and who incite racial or other religious violence. There is no place for that in our society, and I know this House will stand united in making sure those who do this face the full force of the law.
Keir Starmer
We do not want this conflict to harm us here at home, and we do not want it to escalate in the middle east, where there has been too much bloodshed, too much darkness, for too long. A two-state solution—a Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel—feels more distant than ever, but it remains the only way through. Does the Prime Minister agree that, because hope is at its thinnest, we must work our hardest to ensure that the voices of division and despair are sidelined and that, however difficult it seems, the hope of a political path to peace is maintained?
The Prime Minister
It is precisely because it is that vision of a more hopeful, peaceful future that Hamas have tried to destroy that we must redouble our efforts to try to bring that future about. In all the conversations that the Foreign Secretary and I have had with regional leaders, we have emphasised our commitment to making sure that we make progress on all the avenues that will lead towards that peaceful future. That has been a feature of our dialogue, and I am confident there is willingness in the region not to escalate this crisis beyond dealing with Hamas, the terrorist organisation, and to strive very hard towards a future where Palestinians and Israelis can co-exist peacefully, side by side, and look forward to a future filled with dignity, security and prosperity.
Keir Starmer
This is a crisis where lives hang in the balance and where the enemies of peace and democracy would like nothing more than for us to become divided and to abandon our values. Does the Prime Minister agree that, during this grave crisis, the House must strive to speak with one voice in condemnation of terror, in support of Israel’s right to self-defence and for the dignity of all human life, which cannot be protected without humanitarian access to those suffering in Gaza and the constant maintenance of the rule of international law?
The Prime Minister
I agree. We will, in this House, speak with one voice in condemning Hamas for perpetrating a shockingly brutal terrorist attack and causing untold suffering for many. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, we stand united in supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, to protect its people and to act against terrorism. Unlike Hamas, the Israeli President has make it very clear that Israel’s armed forces will operate in accordance with international law. We will continue to urge the Israelis to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians, while remembering, importantly, that it is Hamas who are cruelly embedding themselves in civilian populations.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued campaign to improve rail services in Warrington. He is right: we will be investing £12 billion to better connect Manchester and Liverpool. That would allow for the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail, exactly as previously planned, including high-speed lines, which would provide better rail connections for the people living in northern towns such as Warrington. I know that he will be discussing this further when he meets the rail Minister.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
We all continue to unequivocally condemn the abhorrent terrorist attack on the Jewish people and the Israeli state. We fully support the defeat of Hamas and, of course, the safe return of all hostages who have been taken. So, too, I hope, do we all share the same common humanity of protecting civilians and condemning any acts of collective punishment against the Palestinian people. In that regard, many of the images emanating from Gaza in recent days will shock us all to the core, so may I ask the Prime Minister: will he join those of us on these Benches and call for an immediate ceasefire in the region?
The Prime Minister
We believe that Israel does have a right to defend itself, to protect its people and to act against terrorism and ensure that the awful attack we have seen from Hamas cannot happen again. Unlike Hamas, the Israelis, including the President, have made it clear that their armed forces will operate in accordance with international law. We will continue to urge the Israelis to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians.
Stephen Flynn
My ask for a ceasefire is done with all sincerity, not only in order to protect civilians, but to ensure that we have the safe creation of humanitarian corridors, which will allow not only for food, water and vital medicines to get into Gaza, but for innocent civilians caught up in this terrible conflict to flee. In respect of those who wish to flee, may I ask the Prime Minister what early consideration, if any, his Government have given to the creation of a refugee resettlement scheme akin to those previously put in place for Syrian nationals, Afghani nationals and, of course, Ukrainian nationals?
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we are already one of the most significant contributors to the United Nations’ efforts to support Palestinian refugees; our funding supports about 5.8 million refugees annually, and on Monday we announced a significant increase in our funding of aid to the region, including to the UN to support refugees. With regard to humanitarian aid, as I said before, we are already working through pre-emptively moving aid and relief teams into the region. But, critically, the most important thing is to open up access for that aid to get into Gaza, which is why our conversations with the Egyptians and others are so critical. We continue to work closely with allies to find every way to get that aid to the people who need it as quickly as possible.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I commend my right hon. Friend for his excellent intervention. He is absolutely right that we should not rush to judgment before we have all the facts on the appalling situation that we saw yesterday, particularly given the sensitivity that he raises and the impact on communities here, but also across the region. As I said, it is incumbent on all of those in positions of responsibility in this House and outside in the media to recognise that the words we say will have an impact, and we should be careful with them.
We are working with our allies to establish the truth of what has happened. We will do that robustly and independently, but my right hon. Friend is right to point out that in the same way as we do not treat what comes out of the Kremlin as the gospel truth, we should not do that with Hamas.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I associate my party with the comments made in relation to the deplorable loss of innocent human life in both Israel and Gaza.
Having left the European Union, building links and co-operation across the four nations of our United Kingdom can only strengthen the Union. Will the Prime Minister agree with my proposal for the creation of an east-west council, to bring together all parts of the UK family to discuss and collaborate on trade and the many other opportunities presented by the Union?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman made a powerful case in his conference speech last weekend for a strong, functioning Northern Ireland within our Union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had the opportunity to discuss our shared commitment to the Union with the right hon. Gentleman’s party over recent weeks and months, and I am grateful for the constructive approach and tone taken in those discussions. There is considerable merit in the idea of a new east-west council to further strengthen the Union, and I look forward to exploring the issue further with him and his colleagues.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has been a long-standing champion for Cleethorpes, and particularly for the importance of strong regional transport connections. Network North will see Hull fully connected to the northern powerhouse network, which I know he will welcome, and north-east Lincolnshire will share in a brand new £2.5 billion fund to support local transport connections, perhaps including many or some of the ones he mentions. I know he will have been delighted to see LNER run a test service to Cleethorpes earlier this year, and I can assure him that the Department for Transport is continuing work to see a direct service to London reinstated.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Weeks after I became Prime Minister, we announced a significant increase of almost £14 billion for the NHS and social care. We followed that up with the first long-term workforce plan in the NHS’s history, to ensure that we train the doctors and nurses we need for the future. That demonstrates our commitment to the NHS. We also, I am pleased to say, reached a settlement with over 1 million NHS workers, including our nurses, for a full, fair and affordable pay rise.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I know that this is a subject on which my right hon. Friend speaks with authority, and I thank him for his previous work in the area. With regard to our aid funding, as the Foreign Secretary will outline later, we have very stringent governance in place to make sure that it is spent on the humanitarian needs that we want to address. I also agree with him that there is one person and one person alone that is responsible for the atrocities that we are seeing, and that is Hamas.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions about hospital infrastructure are a matter for the NHS. I am told that Devon Integrated Care Board is working together with NHS Property Services and local community healthcare providers to establish a future sustainable use for the currently vacant space. May I also take the opportunity to commend the work that my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) is doing on this topic?
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner for the Penistone line rail upgrade. I know that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary is conducting a corridor development study given the new commitments to services on the Sheffield to Leeds and Sheffield to Hull lines, and, as part of that exercise, will consider enhancing the service on the Huddersfield to Penistone and Sheffield line, and I know that my hon. Friend will discuss this further when he meets the rail Minister.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud of our record supporting people with the cost of living. Thanks to the actions that we have taken, we have paid half of the typical family’s energy bill last winter, frozen fuel duty and boosted the national living wage to record levels, and 8 million people across this country are now receiving direct cost of living payments worth £900. While we are helping people with the cost of living, all Labour’s ideas are doing are costing them a fortune.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you may notice that many ladies in the Chamber today are wearing pink for breast cancer awareness, but roughly 15% of those with breast cancer are diagnosed with lobular cancer, a little known strain that is harder to detect, has worse outcomes and has no dedicated treatment. I am working with Dr Susan Michaelis at the lobular moonshot project to campaign for a dedicated research stream for lobular cancer. Will the Prime Minister meet with us to discuss this and how the Government can help us to save more lives from breast cancer?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work in this area. Early diagnosis of cancer is key and the NHS “Help Us, Help You” campaign is seeking to address the barriers deterring patients from accessing diagnosis and treatment. Thanks to treatments and faster detection, survival rates for breast cancer are now increasing. Last year, more than 1 million scans were carried out, preventing an estimated 1,300 deaths from breast cancer. This Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I encourage anyone who is invited to take up the offer of breast cancer screening.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member talked about our military assets. Let me be crystal clear: the assets that we have moved into the region are not there in any combat capacity. They are there for two reasons: first and foremost, to provide surveillance to ensure that this crisis does not escalate and that arms are not being sent to entities like Hezbollah—that is what our surveillance aircraft are currently doing, and indeed the next set of assets arriving this week will also help—but also to provide contingency support for humanitarian assistance as and when required in the coming days and weeks.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
On Sunday, Terrence Carney, a 70-year-old Hartlepudlian, was murdered by an asylum seeker. The people are afraid and angry. Every week, my office is besieged by asylum seekers. My staff are intimidated by young men. The fact is that most of them are illegal migrants who should be expelled. My thoughts and sympathies are with Mr Carney’s family and friends, and all my constituents affected by this heinous crime. However, sympathy is not enough. They deserve action, and I am demanding it. Will the Prime Minister take action? Will he make sure that enforcement is delivered? Will he ensure that people who have no right to be here are expelled? Enough is enough. I want these people out of Hartlepool now.
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, I am unable to comment on cases that are currently before the court, but I join her in expressing my sympathies to the families affected. I reassure her that the Government are doing everything that we can to tackle illegal migration and the harm that it causes by removing those with no right to be here in the UK. We have excellent long-standing relationships to return people to many countries. We are returning thousands more people this year than we have in the past, and we will continue to use every avenue at our disposal to ensure that it is only this country and this Government who decide who comes here, and not criminal gangs.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Quite simply put, Israel suffered from a brutal terrorist attack at the hands of Hamas, and it is absolutely right that Israel has a right to defend itself, root out terrorism, and ensure that such an act does not happen again. As Israel’s President has said, its military will operate within international law, but the hon. Gentleman failed to acknowledge that it is Hamas who embed themselves inside civilian populations and put innocent civilians in harm’s way. He would do well to remember that.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has been absolutely right to lead the nation in reassuring the British Jewish community in the wake of the utterly appalling atrocity visited upon Israel and Jews on 7 October. I understand that my right hon. Friend will be travelling to the region, and he will see for himself the shock and trauma that is through the Israeli nation after this event—shock and trauma that is accompanied by a rage. The enormous danger is that the Israeli reaction, led by a Prime Minister who will be held accountable for this failure of intelligence, is going to amount—is indeed amounting—to a war crime. That will not only be a crime; it will be a mistake. I urge my right hon. Friend: there is now no one better placed to urge Israel to stay within the international rule of law, and to exercise restraint on behalf of us all.
The Prime Minister
As a friend, we will always urge Israel to take every possible practical precaution to avoid harming civilians, and indeed to act within international law, as Israel’s President has said its armed forces will do, while recognising the incredible complexity and difficulty of the situation on the ground. It bears repeating that Hamas is a terrorist organisation that embeds itself inside a civilian population. We always have to remember that. Israel is taking every possible practical step to avoid harming civilians, and we will do everything we can to provide humanitarian support to the area.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I start by thanking all our veterans for their contribution to our safety and security. I am delighted to have been able to announce the new nuclear test medal last year and that it is starting to be received by many people, including the hon. Lady’s constituent. She will know that I cannot comment on ongoing litigation in respect of requests for health records, but I can say that anyone can request copies of their own medical data by submitting a subject access request to the Department, and if they are not satisfied with the processing of that request, they can make a formal complaint via the complaints process.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
We appear to be on a downward spiral in the middle east, which inevitably will lead to a humanitarian crisis. The role of Egypt will be fantastically important. What can we in the wider international community do to work with the Egyptians to ensure that refugees coming on to Egyptian soil are legitimate refugees who pose no threat to the Egyptian state and are not terrorists in disguise?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point regarding the Egyptians’ concerns about that border, but we have prioritised speaking with President Sisi and are in continued dialogue with our Egyptian partners to see what we can do to provide reassurances and get humanitarian aid to the region. We are working with local partners, including the Egyptian Red Crescent, and the UN on the ground. There will be a significant logistical challenge in stockpiling aid at the border and then moving it into Gaza, but I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that the Development Minister is actively engaged in that work as we speak, so that we can play a leading role in facilitating the provision of that aid.
Mr Speaker
This is the final question before the urgent question. I call Patricia Gibson.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting the critical role played by non-craft support operatives at Defence Munitions. Different rates of pay for workers with different skills and qualifications are entirely normal practice in both the public and the private sector. This year, as part of DE&S pay 2023, a generous pay award was delivered which significantly improved the base pay of workers engaged in the dispute. I am told that officials continue to be open to talks on a constructive basis with the GMB to resolve the situation.
Gaza: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital Explosion
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the explosion at the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
The destruction of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza is an appalling tragedy. A hospital is a place of compassion and care. This devastating loss of human life is profoundly disturbing. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I offer my sincere condolences to the families of the deceased and to the injured.
The UK is working intensively with our allies to establish the facts. We will not rush to judgment. The whole House will understand that pointing fingers prematurely only fuels regional instability and upsets community cohesion here in the UK. We need a firm grasp of what has happened, not a slew of social media commentary. We all share a duty to be thoughtful and careful in how we respond to reports emerging from the conflict, which can be at best incomplete or at worst examples of active disinformation. We are carefully analysing the evidence that has been put in the public domain, and other information. As soon as we have reached a definitive conclusion for ourselves, we will make it public.
Some things are not in doubt, however. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out, Hamas carried out a terrorist assault on Israel that was unprecedented in that country’s 75-year history. The whole House united in support of Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism. In defending itself, Israel must act with professionalism and an unwavering commitment to international law. States must take every precaution to minimise civilian casualties and ensure that humanitarian support reaches those in need. I welcome President Herzog’s unequivocal commitment—made both directly to me and in public—that Israel is operating in accordance with the rules of international law.
By embedding themselves in civilian populations, using innocent Palestinians as human shields, launching thousands of rockets since Saturday from one of the most crowded places in the world, and preventing civilians from heeding Israeli warnings about future areas of operation, Hamas reveal themselves and their callous indifference to human life. In this tense situation, UK diplomacy is relentlessly focused on our aims: supporting our nationals in their moment of need, pushing for and delivering humanitarian support, and working to prevent tensions spilling over into the wider region or playing out on the streets of this country. I have travelled to Israel and engaged with G7 allies and regional partners, and I will visit the region again later today because we recognise that this will require intensive effort.
None of us knows how this complex, protracted situation will develop. The Government are committed to keeping the House updated. Both here in the UK and in the region, this is a time for cool heads and determination to make a difference.
Mr Lammy
Thank you so much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his engagement with the Opposition at this very difficult time.
Today, we stand united in mourning the death of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians at the Al-Ahli Hospital. A place of healing became a scene of destruction. Hospitals must always be protected. The death of every civilian, Palestinian or Israeli, is an equal tragedy that pushes back the cause of peace.
When facing an incident of this magnitude, we all have a duty to act responsibly and judiciously as the facts are determined. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in urging everyone in this House and beyond to be wary of disinformation, and to avoid dangerous speculation before the facts are clear? Will he also update the House on what he is doing to deal with outside powers that might be seeking to drive division on our own shores?
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have rightly said that they are working to establish the facts, looking at intelligence with our allies, and that must be right. We also note President Biden’s comments earlier today. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the UK Government share that initial assessment? I also ask him to share with us what information he can, either publicly or on Privy Council terms. Does he agree that those responsible for the deaths at the Al-Ahli Hospital must be held to account?
Since Hamas’s appalling terrorist attack on Israel 11 days ago, Labour has been crystal clear that: first, we support Israel’s right to defend itself, rescue hostages and protect its citizens; secondly, international law must be followed at all times; and thirdly, civilians must not be targeted, aid must be provided and innocent lives must be protected. Gaza is in the middle of an active humanitarian emergency: innocent Palestinian civilians are terrified for their lives. Can the Foreign Secretary today commit that the Government will leave no stone unturned in their diplomatic efforts to secure humanitarian access to food, water, fuel, electricity and medicines, and to ensure the establishment of humanitarian corridors and the proper protection of humanitarian workers? Palestinian civilians in Gaza must know that the world is not simply watching, but acting on their behalf.
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman makes a number of important points, which I commend to the House—a number of which I will respond to and, indeed, amplify. He is absolutely right that this is an incredibly sensitive situation, and not just for the region itself. Our desire to prevent this tragedy from expanding into a regional conflict remains an absolute priority, and of course we have a duty as a Government—I am sure it is a passion shared by the whole House—to ensure that Jewish and Muslim communities in the UK are safe and feel safe, and do not experience ramifications from circumstances that are far beyond these shores and beyond their control.
For that reason, everybody—particularly those who have a voice in the public sphere, whether formal or informal—should be particularly careful about what information they disseminate. They should be particularly vigilant against disinformation, and speculation is never useful. I appreciate that the House, and indeed the country, will want to understand what is going on in real time, and sometimes the pause that we impose on ourselves to ensure that the information the Government provide is accurate can be frustrating, but I would prefer, of course, to be accurate rather than just to work at pace.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that there are malign influences seeking to take advantage of this terrible situation, and we do guard against that. We take note of what President Biden has said, but we will come to our own judgment. We will work on that quickly and ensure that our assessment is put in the public domain as soon as we are confident of the details.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
As the Foreign Secretary said, we should soon know the direct cause of this explosion. I will send him and the Prime Minister a letter that I have received from the Worthing Islamic society—I think that Jewish people and others in my constituency will agree with every sentence. It ends by asking the Government to use their “influence and support” to
“encourage a peaceful and sustainable resolution that prioritises the rights and well-being of innocent civilians”
caught up in the onslaught.
James Cleverly
The Father of the House makes an incredibly important point. As a former Minister for the middle east, I am acutely conscious of the implications for Islamic communities both in the region and here in the UK, and the protection of those people is as close to our hearts as the protection of Jewish people here in the UK. We will relentlessly pursue what is the enduring UK Government position, which is a viable two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in peace side by side. Of course these circumstances are a setback, but nevertheless we will not be fatalistic. We will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian people and the wider region to bring about that positive aim.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It appears that what happened last night at the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza was a war crime—it was a crime against humanity—and if that is the case, there can be no hiding place for those who gave the order and those who carried it out. Independent investigators must be allowed to find out exactly who is responsible for this atrocity and have them brought before the International Criminal Court.
The scenes of death and destruction from last night are beyond harrowing, but the tragic reality of this conflict is that innocent civilian lives are being viewed as little more than collateral damage. They are not collateral damage; every single human life matters, and they matter equally—Israeli, including the hostages, who must be immediately released, and Palestinian.
Today it was reported that, as a direct result of the draconian collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza, children are dying of thirst. Will the Government now finally tell the Israeli Government that the imposition of a collective punishment is a crime, that it is a breach of international humanitarian law and that it must end immediately?
James Cleverly
I note what the hon. Member has said about the incident at the Al-Ahli Hospital. As I say, we will be making a statement only when we are comfortable about the facts. We have to be realistic that the opportunity for any kind of independent investigation going into Gaza is severely limited, which is why we are taking the time to ensure that we get this right.
In all our conversations with the Israelis, we have reinforced the need for the protection of civilians; they understand that and they agree. President Herzog has made a commitment about adherence to international law. We must, however, be completely clear that Hamas accept no such limitations on their actions. They have specifically targeted civilians and children—they went out of their way to identify and murder the most vulnerable—and it is completely appropriate for Israel to take action to protect its civilians and prevent Hamas from perpetrating further atrocities in that country.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The situation is unbearable, but while the horrors of last night cannot be unseen, we must not look away. Violence is increasing across the region, but also in Europe and the US. We in this House have a duty to protect British nationals, so what assessment have the Government made of whether the joint terrorism analysis centre needs to raise the threat level? Can I also have reassurance about what is being done to protect out diplomatic staff around the world after the heinous attacks we saw on Israeli and American embassies overnight?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We constantly assess the threat picture both here in the UK and in the region. I have conducted an all-staff meeting with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff across the whole world—I am told that over 5,000 people attended that briefing. I made it clear that, as their employer, I regard my duty of care towards them as uppermost. We do of course continue to support British nationals overseas, including in the region, and our consular team are maintaining, as best they can, contact with British nationals in Israel, and indeed in Gaza. It is an incredibly difficult consular situation, but I can assure the House that we will remain, as far as we are able to, in contact with those British nationals seeking our support, and we are consistently trying to reopen exit routes from Gaza so that British nationals can leave.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the horror with which the missile strike on a hospital in Gaza, which caused hundreds upon hundreds of casualties, is regarded not just here in Britain, but in the region and internationally. The House has heard his injunction not to jump to conclusions, but would he support a genuinely independent inquiry into what is happening?
James Cleverly
Of course, an independent inquiry is the gold standard in the event of such a circumstance, but the simple truth in relation to having any kind of independent investigation in Gaza is that the current situation—bearing in mind that our own embassy team there are severely limited in what they are able to do, and the international community is not able to operate freely—makes the practicality of that incredibly difficult. We are making our own assessment. We will gather and analyse as much information as we can. We will not be led by any other nation; it will be a UK assessment of the situation. Once we have come to a conclusion, we will share it with the House and the country.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the Government are wise not to rush to conclusions, and to have a proper investigation before they come to a conclusion about what actually happened in this utterly appalling incident. I am struck by the number of emails I have received from constituents who have already rushed to conclusions, and all blame Israel. Does he agree that this shows the important responsibility not only that broadcasters have to ensure they do not disseminate false information, but that owners of social media platforms have to try to avoid hate being spread literally around the world at times like this?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend will know that, within Government, action is being taken to ensure that social media owners act with greater professionalism and greater consciousness of the impact they have. I would make a broad point to broadcasters—I have had this conversation directly with them in the past—which is that I believe there is an attempt by broadcasters to try to outpace social media platforms. The days of breaking news on traditional platforms are long in the past; they should focus on accuracy rather than pace, because their words have impacts here in the UK and around the world.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
My heart breaks for everyone who lost their lives in the Episcopal hospital disaster last night. It is now quite clear that even hospitals are not a safe place of refuge anywhere in Gaza. That hospital was struck by a missile the week before yesterday. I want to understand quite clearly from the Foreign Secretary why, as we call on the country for humanitarian access to Gaza, we are not also calling for an immediate ceasefire to enable that to happen. It seems to me bizarre that we cannot call for a ceasefire to enable that humanitarian corridor to open, because the scale of death that is now unfolding will reach tenfold over the next few days.
In line with that, I would really like to hear from the Foreign Secretary assurances that he is speaking to our Israeli counterparts to ensure that any Gazans and Palestinians who do evacuate will have an absolute right of return to their lands and do not end up languishing, as the millions of other Palestinian refugees currently still do, in both Jordan and Lebanon.
James Cleverly
I have conversations regularly with the Israeli Government, and with the Governments of countries in the neighbourhood, about Palestinian refugees. I am unable to go into the details because they are extensive, but the hon. Member should be aware that we have always supported Palestinian refugees, with the £27 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and the recent announcement of an additional £10 million is a direct response to the situation there.
The simple truth is that Israel does have a right to defend itself. The truth is that Hamas have no interest in a ceasefire. They have no interest in resolution, they have never attempted to engage in a two-state solution, and they have made every attempt to collapse the Oslo process. They are no friend of the Palestinian people. They have fired literally thousands of rockets into Israel since Saturday. Israel does have the right to take action to defend itself and to recover its hostages, and the UK, while respecting that, will of course always encourage it to adhere to international law and to protect civilians.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is surely right to say that we must not rush to judgment on this incident, but does he agree that one fact we know right now is that the primary moral, and as a result legal, responsibility for the appalling civilian life loss in Gaza today and in the days ahead lies with Hamas, first for their attack on Israel, and secondly for the systematic practice of using civilians as human shields?
James Cleverly
I know that my predecessor and right hon. Friend is very well read on this situation, and I pay tribute to the work he did when he was Foreign Secretary and I was his Minister for the Middle East and North Africa. He is absolutely right, and we must be clear-eyed about the trigger event. It was the most brutal mass murder in a terrorist action in the history of the state of Israel, and the largest loss of Jewish life on a single day since the holocaust. Of course Israel has the right to defend itself, and we must never forget that Hamas’s actions of embedding themselves in civilian communities and putting Palestinian lives intentionally at risk to pursue their political aims is completely unjustifiable.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Whatever the outcome of the independent inquiries into what happened with the tragedy in Gaza yesterday, in reality Gaza is such a densely populated area that no matter what efforts are made, the effects of bombing will be indiscriminate. If the Government cannot go as far as calling for a ceasefire, will they at least call for the end of the rockets and the bombs? If they cannot go as far as to call for the end of the bombing, can they at least call on Israel to stop bombing the south, where refugees from Gaza City are going at the instructions of the Israeli army? A cease in the bombing could trigger the negotiations that enable the release of the hostages.
James Cleverly
I pay tribute to the work of the international community in trying to secure the release of the hostages. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised the work that the Qataris are doing in this instance. They are not the only ones doing that, and we will continue to support their efforts. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about calls to stop the air attacks on Gaza from Israel, but the simple truth is that the alternative is a ground assault by Israel and, as he says, the practicalities of any military operation in an area as densely populated as Gaza will be deeply challenging. Again, I remind the House that the people who murdered those revellers, those partygoers, those children and those old people embed themselves in civilian communities—in hospitals, in schools—specifically to use innocent Palestinians as human shields. We must all understand the culpability that they hold for many of these civilian casualties, but I will, of course, once again speak with the Israelis about making every effort that they are able to make to minimise civilian casualties.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Whoever was responsible for the hospital attack last evening, it was an appalling human tragedy, and we think of all those who have lost their loved ones at this time. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to be evidence-led in what the Government say about this incident. Does he agree that if the UK intelligence community, whether that is GCHQ, the Secret Intelligence Service, Defence Intelligence and so on, are having to take time and deliberate in order to come to a conclusion, perhaps all of us in this place, including media organisations outside this place, should also show the same caution and consideration before making statements that could prove incendiary?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There is, of course, the completely understandable desire of media outlets to report promptly, but I believe they have a greater duty to report accurately and responsibly. Words that emanate from the UK are taken seriously. We have huge standing in the world, and things that are said at the Dispatch Box, in this House and on our media, are listened to around the world. Therefore, we have an enhanced duty to ensure that the words we say are accurate.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I deplore the loss of all civilian life, Israeli and Palestinian, and I commend the Foreign Secretary for his caution over attributing blame for last night’s attack. Does he think that we should also be cautious about the figures for casualties coming from Gaza? They do not describe all as civilian casualties; there is reason to believe that there is a very high volume of Hamas combatants among those figures.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am not going to minimise the pain and suffering of those Palestinian families who have lost loved ones and had people injured, but we know that just as Hamas are abusing the Palestinian people, they also abuse the figures that they put in the public domain. We must be highly sceptical of any information coming out of Hamas, just as the Prime Minister said we should be. We remain focused on trying to reduce the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people, as well as supporting Israel and its self-defence. While doing so we should be deeply, deeply sceptical of any and all information coming from Hamas spokespersons.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his caution. We should remind ourselves of the words of Mark Twain:
“A lie can travel half way around the world”
before the truth has got its boots on. Never more certainly was that the case than here. I remind hon. Members that Hamas bear complete responsibility for everything. Our hearts go out to all the innocents who have died and suffered—of course they do—but Hamas are the perpetrators and they have brought this on themselves. We remind ourselves that when they murdered all those Israeli Jews in the territories, they filmed them and committed atrocities deliberately. That was to remind the Israelis of the holocaust and what was likely to come. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that broadcasters should not enter into discursive debate? When as issue such as this happens, they should report the facts as known, and nothing further.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend speaks with authority and clarity on this, and I find myself in complete agreement with him. I have Jewish friends who are trying to keep their children off social media, because they know that they will be assaulted with images of Israelis who have been murdered and whose bodies have been desecrated. No one in the modern era should have to endure that kind of repeated pain.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Evacuation orders in the past week have included hospitals, but many vulnerable people are unable to move because of their disabilities or illness. What conversations has the Foreign Secretary had directly with UK aid agencies and non-governmental organisations about that situation? What more can the UK do to ensure that civilian populations, including medical and aid workers, are protected?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point, and my Department remains in close co-ordination with international aid agencies and NGOs. We recognise the practical difficulties of that evacuation order, and in a highly dense area such as Gaza we completely understand those practical difficulties, particularly for medical organisations.. As imperfect as it may be, attempting to remove civilians from a future area of military operations stands in sharp contrast with the actions of Hamas, who are actively seeking to prevent people from leaving an area of future conflict, and intentionally putting civilians in the way, using innocent Palestinians as human shields.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I commend the Foreign Secretary, and his Opposition shadow, for their tone, but the fact is that last night an evil terrorist organisation that murders Jews and oppresses Palestinians was instantly believed in a number of quarters, whereas many refused to acknowledge that Jewish babies had been brutally murdered without demanding graphic proof. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that unsubstantiated reports such as those we saw last night might actually cost lives, because they inflame tensions in an already highly volatile region?
James Cleverly
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Everything has a cost, and rushed, inaccurate reporting costs lives. Everybody, whether they are formally involved in the reporting process, a citizen journalist or just active on social media, should be very conscious that this involves real lives in the most sensitive of circumstances and that such reporting could have repercussions not just in the area or the region, but in this country as well.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
We rightly unite to condemn the barbaric actions of Hamas against innocent Israelis, and the loss of Palestinian lives and the unfolding humanitarian crisis is a profound tragedy. The scenes at al-Ahli Hospital shock us all, and I hope the Secretary of State will do everything to ensure an independent investigation, but people in Gaza are trapped, so what more will he do to ensure consular support not just on the ground there, but to families heartbroken back here in the UK? Will he hear and heed the words of Nadia El-Nakla, the wife of our Scottish First Minister, whose family are trapped there right now? She said:
“We are not watching a natural disaster, this can be stopped.”
James Cleverly
The consular department in the FCDO has got in contact with the families of those British nationals who are trapped in Gaza, and we are providing ongoing consular support. The hon. Lady will understand that the experience of the First Minister, his wife and their family is a live example of the plight of a number of families. Information is incomplete, our access is severely limited and sadly we have to rely on a number of interlocutors and people over whom we do not have direct control, including Hamas. We will continue to support British nationals as best we can, until they have been evacuated from that area.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
One fact that is not in dispute is that every rocket fired from Gaza into Israel is aimed at murdering civilians, in stark contrast to Israeli defensive action. Last night, there were Members in this place, including senior Members, scurrying around, stating as fact that this incident was caused by an Israeli rocket. The BBC and other media referred to statements by “Hamas officials”—I think they meant to say Hamas terrorists—and presented them as fact without challenge. That not only risks radicalisation of communities in this country, where we already know there is a problem with antisemitism, but puts Jews at risk. I urge colleagues to be careful of their comments given the role that blood libels play in promoting antisemitism.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and I restate my request of all people commenting on this—whether they have a formal role within the media or are in a high-profile position, such as Members of this House—to be thoughtful of the implications of their actions, to be sceptical of all information coming out from Hamas, and to take a little extra time to verify, which can literally save lives here and abroad.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I know this situation is complex, and the taking of life and hostages, whether Israeli or Palestinian, is abhorrent, but we have to recognise that Palestinians cannot defend themselves. They have no means, and now their places of sanctuary, such as hospitals, are no longer safe places either. For that reason, I urge the Foreign Secretary once more to call for a ceasefire, so that we can see a de-escalation in this horrific conflict.
James Cleverly
Of course everybody—I will rephrase that. All reasonable people want this terrible situation to be resolved, and resolved quickly. This was not a conflict that Israel asked for; it is a conflict that they were forced to engage in because of the mass murder in their country perpetrated by Hamas terrorists who embed themselves in schools, hospitals and in civilian communities. Calls for ceasefires are all well and good, but I have seen nothing—nothing—that leads me to believe that Hamas would respect calls for a ceasefire.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
May I say to my right hon. Friend that whatever the investigation finds out, in a sense it will not matter a great deal to all those who are dead in the hospital? Whether the Israeli explanation is correct that it was an Islamic Jihad missile that misfired and then landed among explosives that were on the hospital site that then killed so many people, or whether it was an Israeli strike, in the end both sides have now committed war crimes. If they are just additional crimes being added to the ledger on either side, that is simply what it will be. I say to my right hon. Friend, in his relations with Israel and in reinforcing the position of the Prime Minister, that the only way to get out of this mess is a ceasefire. Otherwise, we will not see the relief of people who are starving and are dehydrating to death—that is a collective punishment, which is illegal under international law—following the deportation of people from northern Gaza, which again is illegal under international law. There are specific offences that have already taken place, and I say to my right hon. Friend: for all our sakes, he should work, as he said, with clear-minded determination to get the best answer from our ally.
James Cleverly
The House needs to understand that prior to Hamas’s terrorist attack, tens of thousands of Gazans passed through the border into Israel every day in order to work. Israel provided—often without payment—water, electricity and gas to the people of Gaza. That was interrupted as a direct result of Hamas’s brutal terrorist action. Thousands of rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel from in and among schools, hospitals and civilian communities. We do of course always remind Israel, as we would any other nation involved in military operations, of their duties under international law. President Herzog, Israel’s head of state, has reinforced that commitment. We hear no such commitment from Hamas.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
Last night’s absolute tragedy of the explosion at the Al-Ahli Hospital will simply intensify passions and polarise the debate even more. Many children and young people here in the UK will have seen the images on our televisions and screens and on social media platforms, and I think they will be influenced by that. While I thank the Government for the money and support they are giving to the organisations protecting faith schools, mosques and synagogues, can the Minister tell us what he is doing to provide advice and support to ordinary schools and our universities, where there is an intensification of hatred emerging and where I am hearing of both antisemitic and Islamophobic views being expressed and attacks being wrought on individuals?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. While I will not go into details of conversations in Cabinet, I can assure her that the protection of all communities in the UK was something that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities highlighted. That very much goes hand-in-hand with the commitment that the Home Secretary has made that we will protect all communities in the UK—Muslim, Jewish and others—and we will work with institutions, whether educational institutions or others, to try to ensure that the people at those institutions can go about their lives free from fear, intimidation and discrimination.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much agree with the Foreign Secretary that the entity responsible for the loss of lives we are seeing now is Hamas: a terrorist barbaric organisation that killed innocent Jewish people. The question now is about doing everything we can to save lives of both Israeli and Palestinian people who are innocent in that regard. I welcome the Government’s commitment to humanitarian assistance for the ordinary people of Palestine and the Foreign Secretary’s differentiation, like the Prime Minister’s differentiation, between the people of Palestine and the terrorist organisation Hamas.
The Foreign Secretary says that, moving forward, we will work towards a two-state solution. The people in the region want to know what that two-state solution is. Is that based on Security Council resolution 242 and the 1967 borders, which the United Kingdom signed up to? What is a clear framework for that? The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), has previously asked for the UK to appoint an envoy to the region. We have two brilliant contenders, if I may say so, in William Hague, the foreign former secretary who gets the region, and Alistair Burt, a brilliant, well-respected former Minister. We have choices and options. When will the Foreign Secretary outline that part of the next steps?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes some important points. The truth is that we remain committed to a two-state solution, with Palestinians and Israelis living side-by-side in peace and prosperity. While at the moment and in these circumstances that might feel like an unachievable aim, we refuse to be fatalistic and give up that aspiration. The details will be for negotiation, but he and the House will have heard us say on a number of occasions that it will be based on the 1967 borders, with land swaps and a shared capital in Jerusalem. But we will not be dogmatic; what we want to see is peace brought about. I hear what he said about appointing a special envoy. We have some of our most capable people in our posts in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and in Gaza.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I repeat my condemnation of the Hamas attacks against innocent Israeli citizens. We saw civilians in Gaza forcibly moved from their homes with no guarantee of safety or return, yet the Government failed to speak out. We saw food, water and electricity cut off in Gaza, yet the Government failed to speak out. Last night, we saw the destruction of a hospital in Gaza. The Government now need to speak out.
Will the Foreign Secretary support the International Criminal Court investigation into the situation in Palestine, given that the prosecutor has said that its mandate includes the current context? That so obviously and urgently must include investigation of the hospital explosion. We need to ensure that no more blood is spilled. We need a ceasefire now.
James Cleverly
I must say to the hon. Lady that her assessment of the UK Government’s voice on this issue is fundamentally wrong. We have consistently discussed with Israel—and publicly—our commitment to humanitarian law. She needs to understand that a military force highlighting a future potential area of conflict and encouraging people to move away from that area of conflict is not forced relocation. [Interruption.] It is not forced relocation. I draw her attention to the actions that Hamas have taken to prevent innocent Palestinians from moving away from places of danger. The contrast could not be more stark.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Given that we do not know the facts about what happened and whether, for example, this was a ghastly mistake, we should be here not to blame but to mourn the loss of so many doctors, staff and patients at the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, which I and several other hon. Members from the House visited more than a decade ago. It was founded in the late 19th century by the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and is run by it to this day, so it is likely that Christians as well as Muslims will have lost their lives.
Will my right hon. Friend, whose approach has been appropriately calm at a time when we need to reduce and not inflame tensions both domestically and in the middle east, do his best to stay in touch with the Anglican Church to see if it has more information about what has happened to those who were there, to see how we can help re-establish what was a valuable programme—for example, it provided free breast cancer treatment and mobile clinics—and do all he can to think about how, in the longer term, we can enable people in that troubled land to co-exist in a way that we have, for so long, failed to do, supporting the United Nations Relief and Works Agency as far as possible on its humanitarian mission?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the tragic loss of life in this instance. As I have said, the UK Government share in the grief of those who have lost loved ones, irrespective of their faith or their community. We know that there are incredibly passionate voices on both sides, but, as I have said a number of times, we have a duty to be calm and careful when we speak about this issue. We will continue to work for peaceful co-existence of all the communities in that region. As difficult as that is, it will remain a priority for the UK Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is my intention to call all Members who were here at the beginning of the urgent question and who are trying to catch my eye. I have to say to the House that we are clearly dealing with a very sensitive, emotive and sad subject, but it is not necessary for every Member to express their grief, understanding and empathy. That has been done. Let us take it for granted that we are all broken-hearted about the situation; let us not repeat that before every question. This is not an occasion for speeches; it is one for questions. If we can have straightforward, short questions that enable the Secretary of State to give straightforward, short answers, we will get everyone in. If not, there will be disappointment.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am terrified that there will be an escalation leading to many more civilians on all sides being murdered. I have listened intently to what the Foreign Secretary has said about why he is not calling for a ceasefire, but could he explain both as a diplomat and as a military man how we can get humanitarian aid in, how we can create safe zones and how we can prevent civilian loss of life? Slightly longer term, will he tell us what conversations he is having with the international community about long-term aid and support for the inevitable Palestinian refugees?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady, the Chair of the International Development Committee, makes an incredibly important point. I, the Prime Minister, my ministerial colleagues and of course our ambassadorial teams in the region have been speaking extensively to try to facilitate humanitarian access. That has been most notably with Egypt, but we have also been using our very good relationship with the Qataris to try to influence Hamas, and of course our direct relationship with Israel to try to broker some kind of humanitarian access, even if only temporarily. Thus far, that has been unsuccessful. We will continue to work on that. We have allocated an additional £10 million for direct humanitarian support for the Palestinian people—of course, we are not limited to just that—and we co-ordinating with the international community to ensure that whether in Gaza or wider in the region, Palestinians are looked after in these difficult times.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
My constituent Rev. David Longe is a priest in North Norfolk and formerly served as a priest in Jerusalem. I spoke to him on the telephone last night, and he has potentially lost friends who were working in the Al-Ahli Hospital. He tells me that there are Gazans sheltering in churches, so will the Foreign Secretary please make it absolutely clear in his discussions that the humanitarian role that the churches are currently partaking in must not be underestimated and that the Roman Catholic Church in North Gaza and the Greek Orthodox Church must be absolutely protected for the people they are sheltering?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the faith communities. We often talk about the Jewish faith and Islam but when it comes to this region, the Christian churches play an incredibly important role, and I pay tribute to them. I have heard his point, and I will continue to speak about the avoidance of civilian casualties, particularly in places of safe haven such as churches.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
When seeking to counter an insurgency in Afghanistan over a decade ago, General McChrystal adopted a new concept for NATO soldiers: courageous restraint. This was to separate the insurgents from the civilians among whom they lived. Can the Foreign Secretary inform the House how courageous restraint can be urged on all combatants, including through the full resumption of the water supply to Gaza?
James Cleverly
Courageous restraint, which the hon. Gentleman highlighted, is now a well-embedded concept in professional military forces. I have discussed with representatives of the IDF my admiration for its professionalism and my expectation that it will maintain that professionalism through any military operations. Courageous restraint is not a concept in the heart of Hamas terrorists. We must be realistic about that. Therefore, we will work with Israel and other countries in the region to try to bring this to a conclusion as quickly as possible, but we maintain our support of Israel’s self-defence and we highlight the fact that Hamas are just as willing to see Palestinians killed as they are to see Israelis killed, to pursue their political aims.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Last night, much of the UK media felt it appropriate to immediately and with no room for doubt blame Israel, before the IDF gave its evidence that the rocket was launched from Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It is right that the UK Government independently assess what happened. All that is made so much harder because Hamas have no morals, no boundaries and no problem with killing any innocent civilian in Israel or Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure me that he knows that standing with Israel now will put us on the right side of history?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the callous nature of Hamas’s activities and those of other terrorist groups embedded in Gaza. We expressed our solidarity with the Israelis in their time of grief in the aftermath of those terrible attacks, and we stand in solidarity with them still. We are good friends with the state of Israel. Good friends speak honestly with each other, and we will always do that, but we will always stand beside a nation that seeks to protect itself and its people in the face of such a relentless terrorist threat.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Last night’s explosion at the Al-Ahli Hospital only adds to the unspeakable pain of innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza. As the Foreign Secretary knows, they face a deepening humanitarian crisis, unable to access food, water, fuel, electricity or medical supplies. When does he expect supplies of those lifesaving necessities to be restored to Gaza?
James Cleverly
We have spoken to Israel and countries in the region about the humanitarian need, which is why we put forward the additional money that the Prime Minister announced on Monday. Of course, we do not want those innocent Palestinians caught in Gaza, who are suffering because of the actions of Hamas, to suffer any more than is absolutely necessary. We will continue working with the international community on humanitarian support and with Israel on the preservation of civilian life.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I keep hearing the words of my mother in my brain, and I have done for the last week: “Twa wrangs dinnae make a right.” Hamas are an indefensible organisation in any right person’s books, but the fact that they will not do right does not mean that the UK Government should not demand and work hard towards a ceasefire, and make sure that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza. I thinking repeatedly, as do many others, of helpless children. I am a mother and a grandmother, and that is what I think about every night. Will the Foreign Secretary please make every effort not just to have money set aside but to tell us how he will get humanitarian aid into Gaza City and help those who are suffering in Israel as well?
James Cleverly
Calls for a ceasefire are understandable, and I have much sympathy for the position the hon. Lady sets out, but a ceasefire has to be respected by both parties in a conflict, and I have seen absolutely nothing in the behaviour of Hamas during and since the terrorist attack that gives me any confidence at all that they would respect a ceasefire. Unless they respect a ceasefire, it is not credible to demand that Israel does not defend itself against terrorism.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
To follow up on the previous point, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres has also called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Clearly, the Foreign Secretary has some issues with that, though I do not really understand why. Is it not appropriate for a third party with people on the ground, such as the UN, to make an assessment—one that, with respect, is probably more realistic than his? In the meantime, what safe corridors are being proposed? Has the Foreign Secretary considered them, so we can at least have some safe evacuation for Gazans?
James Cleverly
I remind the hon. Lady and the House that we have people on the ground. My staff are in danger in Gaza. They choose to put their lives at risk in an incredibly dangerous part of the world in order to give me direct insight into the realities on the ground. I urge her to be a bit more thoughtful with regard to the danger that my UK-based diplomats and locally engaged staff put themselves in.
The truth is that I have received nothing that gives me any indication that Hamas or the other terrorist groups operating in Gaza would respect a ceasefire. I respect the UN Secretary-General’s call for a ceasefire. We would all love to see the bloodshed cease, but we have to be realistic about the fact that Hamas, like the other terrorist organisations in Gaza, have demonstrated over and again a complete callousness towards human life, whether Israeli or Palestinian.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
After all the decades of suffering, injustice and occupation endured by the Palestinian people, this terrorism and the scenes of death and destruction at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital are truly heart-wrenching. Those responsible must be held to account, international law must be adhered to and there should be no collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Will the Secretary of State advise the House how he feels peace can be obtained, and of his efforts to urgently deliver food, water, medicines and other aid to blockaded Gaza?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman and the House will have heard the detailed explanation that I gave in answer to the initial question of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). We work relentlessly with the countries neighbouring Israel and Gaza. I will travel to Egypt once again to try to facilitate humanitarian support, and we will work with those countries that are able to influence the leadership in Gaza. We will not rest. We will continue to do everything we can to alleviate this terrible humanitarian situation. The hon. Gentleman asked what is the best thing to do for peace. A good starting point would be terrorists not firing rockets from densely populated areas into Israel.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his clear commitment and true words that, I believe, have captured the collective opinion of us all in this House. As he said, last weekend Hamas terrorists killed 1,400 Israelis, injured 3,500 and kidnapped almost 200. The news last night and this morning filled us all with despair. The bombing of the ill and the elderly at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital is reprehensible to the extreme and to be condemned. However, the circumstances of that horrific event are not clear. Does the Secretary of State agree that while horror and sympathy are to be expressed, judgments must be withheld until all facts are known and clear?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman, as always, speaks with great thoughtfulness on this issue. The immediate and understandable expression of sympathy and condolence is absolutely right and proper, but that should not be conflated with a rush to judgment. Doing so has significant effects, and, as I have said, can quite credibly cause further pain, suffering and loss of life. We should all be conscious of that when we speak in the public domain.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the work he is doing to bring home my constituent who is trapped in Gaza. I note his comments about the consular support for UK nationals. I would be grateful for any further information he can provide—if he can—on facilitating the safe passage of UK nationals and the flow of humanitarian aid. I urge him to pursue these matters on his trip to the region later today.
James Cleverly
I assure the hon. Lady and the House that those are exactly the issues I will be raising on my forthcoming travel to the region. The consular team in the FCDO is making regular contact with those people in Gaza for whom we have contact details, to give them as much notice as possible as and when an exit route becomes available. At the moment that has not become available, but we will keep working to open humanitarian routes and to inform people once they are opened.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
We do not yet know who is responsible for the unspeakable atrocity at the Gaza hospital, but we do know that hundreds were killed and hundreds more were injured; we do know that yesterday an IDF airstrike hit an UNRWA—United Nations Relief and Works Agency—school where thousands were sheltering, killing more; and we do know that over 3,000 civilians have been killed in Gaza so far. Israel does have the right to self-defence, but that cannot include mass bombing of densely populated areas if Israel is simultaneously to stay within international law. I urge the Secretary of State to think again about the issue of a ceasefire. Of course it would need to be worked for and of course it is going to be hard, but unless the UK Government give their backing to the UN on this issue, thousands more will be killed. We should be on the right side of history and I am very much afraid right now that we will not be.
James Cleverly
Israel is one of the parties engaged in this military operation, but there are others, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. I suggest that anybody calling on Israel to cease military operations should at least—at least—call on the terrorists to do likewise.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
As hospitals are targeted, medical relief organisations are desperately trying to evacuate sick and wounded patients to increasingly fewer places of safety, while protecting the dedicated staff looking after them. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm how many functioning hospitals are left in Gaza and how Palestinians who continue to be targeted by bombardments are supposed to receive lifesaving medical treatment?
James Cleverly
The simple truth of the matter is that I do not know the status of the medical facilities in Gaza. We want them to be protected—we have made that clear, and we will continue to do so in all future engagements and conversations we have with Israel. We will, of course, call on Hamas and the other terrorist organisations to remove themselves from the proximity of those hospitals if they are conducting military operations.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The UN reports that the last water treatment desalination plant in Gaza has shut down. At the same time, people are drinking contaminated tap water and polluted sea water. The World Health Organisation says that people need 15 litres of water a day and people in Gaza are surviving on three. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me what practical steps are being taken to ensure the resumption of fuel supplies to water treatment works in Gaza?
James Cleverly
The situation with regard to the provision of electricity, gas and water from Israel to Gaza is of course important. We have spoken with Israel about this. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that Gaza did have its own water production capabilities. We saw videos posted by Hamas proudly demonstrating how water pipes, funded by European aid, were being ripped up and turned into rockets to fire into Israel. Although of course we speak with Israel about support to the Palestinians in Gaza, and our own support to the Palestinians in Gaza, we must not overlook the fact that Hamas has habitually persecuted, punished and oppressed the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
We have already seen one Iranian terror proxy, Hamas, launch attacks against Israel in the past 11 days, but we know that another Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, is waiting in the wings to attack Israel from the north—indeed, this may have already started. What steps are the Government taking to deter Hezbollah from seeking to attack or otherwise undermine Israel at this most difficult time?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. The United States of America and the United Kingdom have put naval assets in the eastern Mediterranean, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions. That is not to conduct military operations; it is to conduct surveillance operations to prevent Iran, or indeed anyone else, from supplying Hezbollah with lethal aid that might be used against Israel.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
In recognising Israel’s right to self-defence against Hamas’s brutal terrorism, the Government have rightly cited international humanitarian law. However, it seems to be the position of the Government that it has so far not yet been broken. Indeed, today the Foreign Secretary has several times cited President Herzog to that effect. By contrast, we have a number of UN agencies and actors, non-governmental organisations and international lawyers all saying that collective punishment is a clear breach of international humanitarian law, including, for example, the cutting off of supplies and the forced movement of people. Frankly, forcing people to leave their homes or hospitals because they are under threat of bombing is forced movement. How does the Foreign Secretary address those contradictions in the UK Government’s position?
James Cleverly
There are no contradictions in the UK Government’s position. I have set out the Government’s position. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with it and others may disagree with it, but there are no contradictions.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The terror attack on Israeli citizens and the subsequent abduction was brutal and evil. The scenes from Al-Ahli hospital last night on the television were beyond comprehension and upsetting, and it goes without saying that we have to do everything we can to stop the impending humanitarian crisis in Gaza from happening. But I am really concerned—I am sure the Foreign Secretary is—that the conflict between Israel and Hamas does not spill over into the streets of any community in the United Kingdom. My home city, Manchester, is welcoming of Muslim and Jew alike. What more are the Government doing to ensure that the catastrophe in the middle east does not end up on the streets of Britain?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I can give him and the House our commitment to protect all communities in the United Kingdom. No one should be held responsible for actions happening thousands of miles away. They have an absolute right to live in peace and security here in the UK. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the rest of the Government are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to protect all people, of whatever faith or community, here in the UK.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Fourteen hundred years on from Cáin Adomnáin, the law of the innocents to protect women and children in conflict, both the terror of Hamas and the utterly disproportionate and illegal response by Israel stain our modern world. Rather than the supine acceptance of Israeli-US policy, will the Secretary of State instead heed the wise counsel of President Higgins of Ireland and seek both an immediate ceasefire and justice for the Palestinian people?
James Cleverly
UK foreign policy is set in London, not in Washington and not in Dublin.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has talked about accountability and accuracy in broadcasts and social media. Does he share my bafflement at why the BBC, our national broadcaster, has repeatedly refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation when they are a proscribed terrorist group?
James Cleverly
I am genuinely baffled by this. I understand that the BBC says that to do so would be to take sides, but I fundamentally disagree with that. The BBC has used the word “terrorist” on a number of occasions, both domestically and internationally, and I just do not understand why it cannot bring itself to describe Hamas as terrorists, because that is what they are.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is imperative that we get to the bottom of the terrible tragedy that unfolded at the hospital last night, and hold to account whoever was responsible. When I visited the region last year, I saw and heard just how difficult it is to supply medical care to the Palestinians. Hospitals across Gaza now face running out of food, fuel and water, and several have been given evacuation orders which, according to the World Health Organisation, patients will not survive. May I urge the Foreign Secretary once again to join the United Nations in calling for the immediate resumption of essential supplies to Gaza in line with international humanitarian law, which he says he keeps calling for?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady has repeated a question that has been asked in the House a number of times, and she will have heard the answers that I have given on each of those occasions.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The grief and loss of millions in Gaza and in Israel have only been added to by the horrific and heinous attack on Al-Ahli Hospital. I was pleased that both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary reiterated our commitment to international law and the importance of bringing those who commit war crimes to justice while also not rushing to judgment. We have our own staff and international humanitarian agencies on the ground in hospitals in Gaza. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that those hospitals can carry on treating innocent civilians, working with the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the hospitals themselves?
James Cleverly
We do of course speak with Israel, and, as I have said, we call on the Israelis to employ the professionalism of which they are understandably proud to minimise civilian casualties and to ensure that, where possible, civilian infrastructure—particularly schools, hospitals and religious sites—is not damaged. However, it is not by accident that Hamas habitually embed their terrorist operations in those very places, making the lives of Palestinians inevitably far more dangerous than they would be otherwise.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I commend the UK Government for the announcement of an extra £10 million of aid for Gaza, but that will be of no use to the civilians who are trapped and injured there if it just piles up at the border. What analysis have the Foreign Secretary’s officials conducted of the legality of the Israeli authorities’ order to restrict supplies of water, food, fuel and electricity to Gaza, and the legality of their order to 1.1 million Palestinian civilians in northern Gaza to evacuate and travel south? Those are questions of legality, Foreign Secretary.
James Cleverly
The hon. and learned Lady will know that legal advice within the Department is for Ministers, to inform our decision making. The broader point is that we do of course want to end the suffering that Palestinians are experiencing, and the best way of doing that is to remove the yoke of Hamas from their shoulders—which is why we support, within the framework of international law, Israel’s right to self-defence.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Hundreds of my constituents have written to me expressing horror at the attacks that have happened in Israel and, now, at the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza. One of them has 25 family members in Gaza.
Al-Ahli is one of 22 hospitals in northern Gaza. In view of the hundreds killed last night, the children writing their names on the palms of their hands, and the mothers giving birth in the street as their homes are destroyed and their hospitals damaged, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on the action being taken with international partners now to ensure that hospitals and medical staff are being protected, given that he said earlier today that he was not sure of the situation relating to hospitals? It is estimated that there are 50,000 mothers in Gaza, including pregnant mothers. Will the Foreign Secretary update us on whether there is a plan for their healthcare, and on whether he is confident that that is being dealt with and urgently needed medical and humanitarian supplies are getting through?
James Cleverly
As I said earlier, in a fast-evolving situation during a conflict such as this, it is extremely difficult to conduct an up-to-date assessment of the ability of medical facilities in Gaza to maintain operations. We do of course want civilians and civilian infrastructure to be protected wherever possible, and we have communicated that to Israel, but let me say again that protecting them is made infinitely more difficult in these circumstances, because Hamas and other terrorist organisations specifically embed themselves in civilian infrastructure. That is a long-standing habit of such organisations.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s recognition of the need to exercise caution before leaping to conclusions, given the difficulty of verifying information in situations of crisis, but will he commit himself to personally making contact with different social media and technology companies, urging them directly to help prevent the spread of disinformation and prevent any information war relating to this horrific situation?
James Cleverly
I will not commit myself to doing that personally, but I know that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport takes this issue extremely seriously. We are, of course, taking action to try to improve professionalism on social media platforms, and while I personally will not be making that contact directly, I know that it is being done, and will continue to be done, by the Government.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
At this tragic time, I am driven by my desire for peace and the protection of innocents. While this tragic war continues, will the Foreign Secretary do everything he can to ensure that international law is followed? That, of course, includes the protection of hospitals, medical professionals, civilians and humanitarian aid for Gaza. However, this war will only end through dialogue, so will the Foreign Secretary also do everything he can to keep the flame of hope for a negotiated peace settlement alive? Will he make that a priority for his Government, even when, at times, it seems such a very distant hope?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady is entirely right about the need for us not to lose our desire to bring genuine, sustainable peace. As I have said, in these particularly difficult times that may seem a very far-off and, indeed, impossible aspiration, but we will remain relentlessly focused on bringing a lasting, sustainable peace to the Israeli and the Palestinian people, and indeed to the wider region. I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that while dealing with the immediate challenges, we will also keep that long-term aspiration at the forefront of our minds.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Will the British Government support Brazil’s motion calling for a humanitarian ceasefire, on which the UN Security Council will vote later today? If not, what are the grounds for not supporting it, given that the Brazilian text includes criticism of Hamas whereas the Russian text debated on Monday did not? If Hamas refuse to honour the ceasefire, as the Foreign Secretary fears, will they not be seen by the eyes of the world as not protecting the people whom they purport to represent?
James Cleverly
I have spoken to the Brazilian Foreign Minister about the text of the Security Council resolution, and we are liaising closely with the Brazilians and others, but I will not be able to give a commitment on our voting decision until the text is closed and the negotiations have been concluded.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
When I visited Israel and Palestine three weeks ago with a group of MPs, we met aid workers and health workers who say their last goodbyes to their families every morning because they do not know whether they will return. There is an urgent need to support them, and the UK public are being very generous in response to appeals. In the absence of humanitarian corridors—and I support him in arguing for them—can the Foreign Secretary update the House on efforts to work with UK-based agencies that are on the ground in Gaza to support the provision of mobile health clinics, medicines, food and water there?
James Cleverly
The distribution plan for the initial £10 million that the Prime Minister announced on Monday is still being worked on, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we are have very close relationships with non-governmental organisations and aid organisations based in the UK and operating in Gaza and the region. We will of course be liaising with them both in terms of getting an updated understanding of the situation on the ground and of maximising our support to the Palestinian people.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The most urgent priority must be to prevent the loss of any more civilian lives. To do so, the UN General Secretary has called for an immediate ceasefire. Leading humanitarian agencies such as Oxfam have also called for that. Surely the Government must add their voice to that. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, if they do not, many thousands more will die? Will he also withdraw his earlier remark that what is going on is not forced relocation? If he does not, I believe that he will come to regret that remark.
James Cleverly
Of course all of us want to see an end to the lives that have been lost, but we also recognise that Israel feels the need to take action to protect the lives of its citizens from the attacks emanating from Hamas and other terrorist organisations in Gaza. We have always said that, in our support for that activity, we call upon it to abide by humanitarian law, as its President has committed to doing.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
We need swift confirmation of who is responsible for the devastating attack on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, but the immediate priority is humanitarian support for those affected. The £10 million pledged by the UK Government is genuinely welcome, but can the Foreign Secretary explain how that aid is going to get to those affected, when Israel has closed all humanitarian corridors?
James Cleverly
The situation at the moment is that all humanitarian support going into Gaza is severely limited. There was an open, fluid border between Israel and Gaza, and tens of thousands of Palestinians from Gaza—tens of thousands of Gazans—worked in Israel daily and moved to and fro between Gaza and Israel. That crossing had to be closed, as did the Rafah crossing into Egypt, in response to the terrorist attacks that were perpetrated against Israel. We are working with the Israeli Government, the Egyptian Government and the international community to try to open up humanitarian corridors and we will continue to do so.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
The level of conflicting information and indeed disinformation coming from Gaza, and the irresponsible reporting of this as fact, including that coming from the BBC yesterday, is surely something that we should be condemning. What are the Foreign Secretary and his Department doing to correct this approach from broadcasters? Will he join me in saying the blame should not be cast until all the facts are known, especially to avoid inflaming tensions both here and in the middle east?
James Cleverly
This applies to us all, and particularly to broadcasters that have a high level of international standing. I am a big fan of the BBC and I know the huge influence that the voice of the BBC has internationally. Because of that influence, it is incredibly important that the BBC and other broadcasters are very careful in the reporting of this issue, because of the sensitivity and because of the implications not just in the region itself but here in the UK. That is a general plea to all broadcasters.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I represent a significant number of Jewish and Muslim constituents, many of whom have links to Israel and Palestine. My constituents are devastated and deeply concerned about the innocent civilians caught up in this horror and worried about the implications closer to home. The sights that we have seen overnight are horrifying. I will not ask the Foreign Secretary for facts that he does not yet have, but we saw this human tragedy unfold further overnight, so I am asking for clear assurances on deliverable humanitarian aid now. It is reasonable that we ask him to look as hard as possible at a ceasefire, which would of course apply to all parties, because the innocent civilians in the region have to be our immediate priority. Can he also comment on the need for urgent international work towards a peaceful long-term solution for the region? The Israeli and Palestinian people deserve a bit more of a refocus on their long-term peace.
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady speaks with great passion, which I know is genuine. When I was first appointed to the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office in February 2020, I was the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, and I can assure her that I have been personally focused on trying to find a resolution to this long-standing and painful issue the entire time I have been a Minister in the foreign service. I can assure her that the Government remain focused on that long-term peaceful resolution to this terrible situation. I can also assure her that we want to see the money that we have allocated actually turned into humanitarian support for the Palestinian people. That of course means having humanitarian access, but that is not happening at the moment. We will continue to use all our diplomatic effort to try to unlock those humanitarian access routes.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Residents in Walthamstow are mourning the loss of all civilian lives in this conflict. It is very personal to them. Rania and Sharone are two Walthamstow residents. Sharone is here at the moment meeting the Prime Minister about her parents who have been kidnapped by Hamas. Rania and seven members of her family are stuck in Gaza trying desperately to get out. I want to put on record our thanks to the Foreign Secretary and his officers for what they have done so far, but Sharone desperately needs help to get more information, from whatever parties or third-party agencies, about her parents and the medical welfare, and Rania is desperate to get her family back home to us in Walthamstow, but there is misinformation on the ground as well. Has the Foreign Secretary also considered whether the Kerem Shalom border could be looked at as one way to get humanitarian aid into Gaza to help those affected by this crisis and to bring our people home?
James Cleverly
I want to commend the work of our consular team that is dealing with families who are suffering loss, who are grieving and who are deeply fearful for the welfare of their families and loved ones overseas. I know that the hon. Lady and other hon. and right hon. Members will have constituents who are deeply fearful about what is going on. I would urge them all to use the consular contact details that have been provided, and I am more than happy to make sure that they are circulated to anyone who does not have them. We maintain contact with all those families who have got in contact with us and we try to maintain contact with those British nationals who are currently stuck in Gaza. I can give the hon. Lady and the House an absolute assurance that we will not rest and we will not step back from our duty to support British nationals overseas.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I have had many hundreds of emails over the past few days from constituents who are deeply distressed at the ongoing loss of human life in the middle east. I have been moved by the stories from many of the medical professionals on the ground in Gaza who have not only run out of medical supplies, including painkillers, but have no water with which to carry out their job. When can they expect to receive those essential items?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady asks a pertinent and important question. At this stage, I am not able to give her any credible assurances on the timescales around this. Obviously, we are working with the international community and the countries in the region to try to get humanitarian access. We have set aside the money, as the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, and we have forward-loaded some of our experts to ensure that any opportunity to provide humanitarian support can be utilised at very short notice, but the truth is that I am not able to give her assurances on timescales.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The House is grateful to the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues for being here for an hour and a half. There are a great many questions to be asked, and I am glad that today everybody who wished to ask questions on behalf of their constituents has had the opportunity to do so. Let nobody doubt the fact that every Member of this House thinks this is a most serious and sad situation.
Bills Presented
International Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Fiona Bruce, supported by Dame Andrea Leadsom, Sarah Champion, Sir Desmond Swayne, Sir Stephen Timms, Jim Shannon, Miriam Cates, Dr Lisa Cameron, Tim Farron, Bob Blackman, Caroline Lucas and Taiwo Owatemi, presented a Bill to require the Prime Minister to appoint a Special Envoy for International Freedom of Religion or Belief; to establish an Office of the Special Envoy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 373).
Government of Wales (Referendum on Devolution) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Rob Roberts presented a Bill to make provision for a referendum on devolution in Wales; to provide that no further such referendum may take place within twenty five years; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 374).
Brain Tumours
Wednesday 18th October 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Brain Tumours Bill 2022-23 View all Brain Tumours Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set a target for the number of glioblastoma patients who take part in clinical trials each year; to require training for medical oncologists to include training relating to brain cancers; to provide that any drug that has been licensed for use on tumours must be trialled on people with brain tumours; to make provision in relation to neuro-oncology multidisciplinary teams in the NHS, including a requirement that each such team must include a medical oncologist; to require manufacturers of drugs licensed to treat tumours to make those drugs available in specified circumstances for clinical trials relating to brain tumours; and for connected purposes.
I hope the House will hear me today, because I have made this speech before and have absolutely no doubt that I will make it again. In fact, I will make this speech over and over again until we have turned a corner.
My speech today is about glioblastoma brain tumours. It is the deadly disease that my wonderful sister, Margaret, suffered from for 18 months, and it is a deadly disease with which over 3,200 people are diagnosed every year. For every one of those 3,200 people, there was a time when a doctor sat them down in a room and gave them the bad news—the worst news. I can talk about that because, sadly, I have been in that room with Margaret. What they tell people is that there is no hope. The life expectancy for someone diagnosed with a glioblastoma is, on average, nine months and, after a basic course of treatment, the NHS leaves them to die.
Those who have the money travel abroad for private treatment, safe in the knowledge that the NHS has nothing to offer them. Those who have a support network but who are not rich enough, are forced to crowdfund and to fly thousands of miles to access treatment. The rest, sadly, have to accept their fate. There is no hope. They just have to wait. If they are lucky, they get to nine months.
In March, when I made my first speech about glioblastoma, I felt the same way that I have always felt. I was filled with hopelessness, appalled that the disease has been ignored for so long and left at the bottom of the “too difficult” pile for 30 years. The Government have not touched the sides of the £40 million they allocated for research into glioblastoma. After five years, they have spent just £12 million, a quarter of the amount promised. Universities have ignored glioblastoma for years, too. Glioblastoma is not even on the research agenda. Many universities are focusing their resources on trials on mice, neglecting the 3,200 real people who are crying out for new research and clinical trials.
It is a pretty grim landscape, but it has not been like this for people diagnosed with many other cancers. People with breast, bowel and lung cancers have had the hope of research, clinical trials and funding promises being kept. The Government, universities and pharmaceutical companies have come together to make a concerted effort to change things, and they did.
Just look at what we have done for people with lung cancer. In 2010, only one in 10 people diagnosed with lung cancer survived for five years. By 2020, life expectancy had doubled. In 2010, 83% of people diagnosed with breast cancer survived for five years. By 2020, 86% got to live for five years. In 2010, 58% of people diagnosed with bowel cancer survived for five years. In 2020, we managed to bring that figure up to 60%. However, for people diagnosed with a glioblastoma, there has been no progress and no hope that things will get better. In 2010, the five-year survival rate for people diagnosed with a glioblastoma was 11.9%. Ten years later, in 2020, the survival rate was almost identical: just 12.9%.
Although the treatment and life expectancy of people diagnosed with a glioblastoma has not changed in 30 years, I feel more hopeful today because, since I made this speech in March, I have met the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), and the shadow Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). I have also met clinicians, charities, families and universities, and last week I met representatives of the top pharmaceutical companies in the UK to discuss why we are where we are. Having built up a clearer picture of where we are, I know that if we try something different, we can give people diagnosed with this deadly disease some hope.
So here is something different. First, we need a target of getting 200 glioblastoma patients each year into clinical trials on drugs that have the potential to change the course of the disease. That would be 1,000 patients over the lifetime of a Parliament. With those trials, we could begin to understand what works and what does not.
Secondly, the NHS should take every drug that has already been licensed to deal with other tumours and apply them to clinical trials on glioblastoma brain tumours. That has not yet happened because glioblastoma is a very small target market for the pharmaceutical industry, and such investment is not very profitable. The Government must either encourage or force the pharmaceutical companies to provide the drugs for these trials. Applying those existing drugs would be a cheap way to make a huge difference. It is sometimes the only way that makes a difference. Universities should act as partners in these trials. They should be snapping up the opportunity to carry out research in this area, instead of leaving the field untouched.
Thirdly, the NHS should ensure that every neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team has a medical oncologist who is a core member and is required to attend meetings to discuss patients, so that brain tumour patients are not left in a corner of the ward because there is no specialist arguing for them. Unless a neuro-oncologist is in the room, we will not benefit from their ideas or expertise.
Fourthly, the NHS should require that every doctor training to be a medical oncologist should go through a mandatory course on brain tumours. At the moment, the Royal College of Physicians requires no compulsory training. Doctors have to take two courses on bowel cancer as part of their training, but not a single course on brain tumours. The reason why there is nobody on those wards or in the research infrastructure is because nobody is required to do the training. Who can apply for the research funds if there is nobody in the field?
If we do those four things, we have a chance of some hope. I have not just whisked up this four-point plan; it is the result of meeting experts in the field, including none other than Dr Paul Mulholland, Europe’s leading brain tumour oncologist. If we carry out those four steps, experts think we can drastically improve treatment for everyone diagnosed with a glioblastoma. Some have even said that we could find a cure for glioblastoma within 10 years.
Einstein famously said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” That is what we have been doing for the past 30 years with the treatment of glioblastoma. We can do better, and Margaret’s legacy demands nothing less.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady will know that the whole House sends her our sincere sympathy for the loss of her sister, and that we all recognise the courage it takes for her to come to the House to speak about this very difficult subject. When I put the Question, I am not going to call for the “Noes,” because I know that nobody will say “No.”
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Siobhain McDonagh, Tracey Crouch, Greg Smith, Steve Brine, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Tony Lloyd, Dame Meg Hillier, Mr Clive Betts, Jon Cruddas, Paul Blomfield and Sarah Owen present the Bill.
Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 375).
Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Energy Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9 May 2023 (Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Message
(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Andrew Bowie.)
Question agreed to.
Energy Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 18th October 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 18 October 2023 - (18 Oct 2023)
00:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 181 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 274B. Lords amendment 274B was added to the Bill during consideration in the Lords of Commons amendments. As was set out, the Government did not agree with the inclusion of the amendment and, after further careful consideration, we remain of the same view today. The amendment commits the Government to a consultation
“on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes”
and sets out whom we would consult. It also commits the Government to bringing forward proposals to remove identified barriers to community energy.
However, as a result of working closely with colleagues who have made representations during the passage of the Bill, on 5 September I set out the Government’s commitment to consult on the barriers that the sector faces when developing projects. As a part of that process, we are involving the community energy sector in designing the consultation, through our community energy contact group. The group has already had constructive discussion on this work at its meeting earlier this month. The Government have already made a clear commitment to the consultation—I announced that commitment at the Dispatch Box in September. We therefore think it is unnecessary, and of no additional value, to put the specifics of it in primary legislation.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done to put in place not just this consultation but the fund, which will be tremendously useful for these purposes too. Does he accept that there is a sense of urgency here; that there is a need to get on with removing these barriers? If he is not content with the timetable set out in this amendment, will he give the House an indication of what he thinks the right timetable is, so that community energy companies and others can know where they stand and get on with the good work that he and I are both in favour of?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. Of course, I agree with him that pace is of the utmost importance in supporting community energy groups around the country, which is why the contact group has already met earlier this month and is engaging already on identifying the barriers that the consultation will seek to address and, thus, informing the Government as to what we need to do. That work is ongoing, which is why we do not feel that this amendment is required; we have begun that process already.
There are other issues with the amendment that mean we cannot support its inclusion in the Bill. The amendment would place an additional obligation on the Government to bring forward proposals to remove these barriers within a specific timeframe. As I just said, we cannot be sure what barriers will be raised in the consultation, or what the proper response to those barriers should be, until we have carried it out. We therefore cannot create a legislative obligation to remove barriers within a six-month timeframe when we are not aware of the nature of the barriers and have not yet properly analysed them.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s argument, but that is technically not what the amendment says; there is no requirement for legislative reform, only one to bring forward proposals. It is unfair to mislead the House—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is not misleading the House; the Minister might possibly have done so inadvertently, but he would not have been misleading the House.
Chris Skidmore
My apologies to the Minister. I did not mean to make accusations so strongly. The challenge here is that subsection (4) of the new clause set out in the amendment contains no reference to legislation such as the Minister suggested. That is my point.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It is the Department’s view and mine that the amendment would result in legislation being required. As I said, we absolutely understand the importance of this, which is why I launched the consultation process as I did. It is why we are engaging so closely with the sector and all interested parties so that we can get this consultation up and running and out as soon as possible, and identify those barriers preventing community energy groups from accessing the market. I know that he has a passion in this area and holds strong convictions on it. I would be happy to continue to work with him, alongside the community energy contact group, as we develop our proposals for the consultation.
I also wish to reassure the House that we will continue to work closely with the sector to support its important work, both through our existing support, including, for example, the £10 million community energy fund, and in carrying out the consultation, to which we have already committed.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
That was a disappointing and specious defence by the Minister of his intention not to proceed with these proposals from the other place. He knows perfectly well what the barriers to developing community energy are; we have debated them at length during the passage of the Bill. So I am not sure it is going to take a forensic panel of inquiry to find out what those details are before the Government can act on any of these things.
We are on the last lap of the Energy Bill and it is particularly disappointing that we are hearing what we are hearing today about this Lords amendment. The Bill, which has been with us in both Houses for well over a year now, puts into place many of the essential tools that will enable energy to progress towards a low-carbon, net zero future. The Opposition have consistently supported the Bill, while endeavouring during its passage to strengthen it in its low carbon mission. We have tried to place into the Bill further elements to make it the best it can be in pursuit of its low-carbon mission, and there have been some junctures during its passage when the Minister has endeavoured to take on board those suggestions for strengthening it, in some instances by drafting a Government amendment that meets the purport of our amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for those changes to the Bill and for the collegiate way in which the Bill has been debated and decided upon.
However, there are exceptions to that, one of which is in front of us today. As the Minister states, it relates to community and local energy, which I am sure Members will agree is and will be an important part of the future low carbon energy landscape. It has the potential to make a serious contribution to our local carbon arsenal of plant, while being funded and supported by the community in which that plant is situated, making it easier to develop and able to restore the benefits of its operation to the community itself.
Labour has committed to providing strong support for community energy, including the assistance of Great British Energy, the company we propose to set up to support the development of local low carbon plant with community energy schemes. The potential for such schemes to contribute to the overall installation of low carbon systems in the UK is immense, with perhaps 8 GW of install capacity added to the national stock through such local schemes. I remind the House that that is getting on towards the equivalent capacity of three nuclear power stations such as Hinkley Point C.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
One of the barriers will be the shortage of grid and cable capacity to link into. Is the hon. Gentleman envisaging some kind of privileged access or some solution to the grid shortage?
Dr Whitehead
That is not quite the subject of our debate, but the right hon. Member can see that we envisage an energetic and far-reaching proposal to develop the grid in such a way that those grid shortages are overcome, so that the grid is able to service the low carbon economy in the way we would all want it to do. In the context of what we are discussing, I remind the right hon. Member that this would be about distributed grids at a local level, rather than the national high-level grids. We need to take further action to strengthen and sort out grids at that level.
The Lords clearly continue to feel strongly about this issue; as we can see, they have sent back to us today a modified version of the original amendment, requiring the Government to consult on changes to assist community energy and, importantly, to set a timeline for proposals to be brought forward to remove barriers to the development of community energy.
Of course, there are others in this House who feel strongly about this issue. The proposals that the Lords have now twice tried to have inserted into the Bill are essentially the wording of a group called Power for the People, which suggested wording for a community energy enabling Bill for which it campaigned to secure signed-up support from parliamentarians. It did indeed secure substantial support from parliamentarians who feel strongly on the issue of community energy. Some 325 Members signed up in support, including 130 Conservative Members and, perhaps most remarkably, 22 members of the Government, including six Treasury Ministers, the present Chancellor and the Minister himself, as I often seek to remind him. There is no lack of support in the House for the principles and practice of community energy.
The Lords amendment seeks to acknowledge and further that support by putting forward very reasonable and, one might have thought, pretty non-contentious wording to add to the Bill. It is inexplicable to me that the Government should seek to resist these proposals in the way they have. Yes, they will say, as the Minister has said, that they have set up a community energy fund of £10 million over two years, which is welcome, and they have verbally indicated that, at some stage, there will be a consultation on barriers to supply, but there are no timelines for that and no commitment to move positively forward from it. That is what this amendment seeks to put right.
As I have said, the Minister appears already to be a signed-up supporter of community energy action, and I would fear for his own emotional wellbeing if he were forced today to perform another policy backflip and acquiesce in yet another Government repudiation of themselves in rejecting this latest Lords amendment. Instead, let us end the extended passage of the Bill on a high note, and all around the House agree on both the importance of community energy and the measures we will need to take to ensure it thrives in the future.
Chris Skidmore
I rise in support of the amendment. It is very similar to an amendment that I tabled during the previous stage of the Bill in the Commons. I echo the comments that have been made about the amendment being uncontentious. It calls for additional consultation—if the Government want me to do that, I will do it myself for the community energy groups.
The net zero review held several roundtables with a number of community energy groups across the country. Indeed, they were one of the reasons why pillar 4 in the final report, “Mission Zero: Independent Review of Net Zero”, was
“Net Zero and the Community”.
One of the key findings of the review was that over half of all net zero decisions will need to be taken not by Government or Parliament, but outside this Chamber. We can turbocharge our transition towards net zero if we can empower and support more community energy groups to take the action that needs to be taken.
Indeed, the only single wind turbine that has been built in the United Kingdom in the past year has been delivered through community energy. I am proud that it is in my home city of Bristol. Ambition Lawrence Weston has seen its 4.25 MW turbine built and it will now power 3,500 homes for the community energy project. The £4 million to pay for the project was raised by the group—it did not come cap in hand to Government—and now it will see an economic return of £140,000 a year as a result of the energy that will be sold to the grid. That is just one example of the myriad examples of net zero projects that demonstrate the economic opportunity that net zero can provide.
In Bristol, we also have the Bristol City Leap, which is a result of a £7 million investment from Bristol City Council. There has been £424 million of inward investment from the American company Ameresco Ltd to decarbonise the city’s district heat network. Community energy points the way for demonstrating that net zero is not a cost, despite what some may say, but an opportunity. We must seize that opportunity now, not just to tackle the climate crisis or reach our nationally determined contribution for 2030, because net zero is about 2030 not just about 2050. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road, somehow suggesting we are going to meet our carbon budgets. Meeting them now, today, is absolutely vital to ensure we can meet our climate commitments in future carbon budgets.
Community energy is here and now. We can get on with delivering net zero with the tools and technologies we have, and, above all, with the people we have—individuals and communities across the country. Community Energy England has 220 groups, a third of which would like to build onshore wind turbines, like Ambition Lawrence Weston. They want to get on with it. They are not often being paid to do this; they do it because they recognise what they can return to their communities. As a Conservative who believes in the power of local communities, we as a Government should be supporting local communities to the hilt to deliver on energy action.
When we look at the future of the grid, everything points to the fact that creating flexibilities on the edge of the grid enhances our energy security, allows us to return energy to the grid, frees up energy capacity elsewhere, and frees up our demand on oil and gas elsewhere. This is a no-brainer. I shall support Lords amendment 274B if it is pushed to a vote, although I will not push it to a vote myself. Nevertheless, it is vital that we send a clear message not just that we are committed to the net zero pathway—because it is the right and the economically important thing to do—but that we recognise that, when it comes to net zero, we need a big bang moment. We need to create little platoons of individuals and communities that are going out there writing their own net zero narratives and stories. For that reason, I will be supporting this Lords amendment today.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
“Specious”, said His Majesty’s Opposition spokesperson about the arguments against this amendment, to which I would add, having listened to the Minister’s defence of the Government’s position on community energy, that it was also one of the more tendentious arguments that we have heard in this Chamber. I am not convinced that the Minister is absolutely fully signed up to that which he has been put out today to defend. I think he knows the importance of community generation and he is not content with the feet dragging that his Government are forcing him to come here to defend. This is another extremely negative decision by a Government who show no let-up in their disdain for community ambition for disaggregated generation infrastructure, or, in fact, for the climate. If we contrast that ambition with the Tories’ now messianic devotion to the cult of nuclear, we see that next year everyone across these islands will be well shot of them, and nowhere more so will that be clear than in the energy space.
Lords amendment 274B is a perfectly sensible ambition. It is a pragmatic amendment by their lordships. It is balanced and deliverable, works with the grain of local ambition, and is destined to unlock significant value in the green transition. It would unlock local enterprise and it would unlock value-add in the real economy and promote community wellbeing. There is nothing not to recommend about this ambition; it is quite clear that it has positives for the people and for our communities. It is no wonder, then, that this Tory Government will reject it out of hand. They have no interest in empowering the people or powering the green revolution. They would rather throw billions on to our energy bills to pay for nuclear, while they proscribed onshore wind in England up until September this year, leaving Scotland to do all the heavy lifting as usual.
Why will these Tories not follow the SNP Scottish Government’s lead in this priority? The Scottish Government’s community and renewable energy scheme promotes community energy ownership across Scotland. CARES continues to help communities engage, participate in and benefit from the transition to net zero. Since 2010, CARES has offered advice and support to more than 900 organisations and assisted in the delivery of 600 community and locally owned renewable projects throughout Scotland, offering funding in the process of £58 million. Just to clarify, that is just in Scotland, which rather puts in the shade the £10 million on offer from the English Government to English community generation—whenever that happens. CARES accelerates progress towards the Scottish Government’s target of 2 GW of renewable energy to be locally or community owned by 2030. The scheme assists in the delivery of both the Scottish Government’s energy strategy and heat in buildings strategy through the provision of loan finance, grant funding and specialist advice.
In Scotland, we see a Government of the people working with the people for their shared ambitions, but here in Westminster we see only the veneer of an Administration masking the infighting, bitter division and self-interest of that Tory party.
The Scottish Government’s community good practice principles, which have been widely adopted across the renewables industry, promote the provision of community benefits at a national level. They promote the equivalent of £5,000 per installed megawatt per annum, index-linked for the life of the project. Over £22.8 million has been paid out in community benefits to Scottish communities in the 12 months since August 2021. England has a very similar scheme but—and it is a big Tory-shaped but—as these funds are in the greater part principally born of onshore wind development, and the Tories introduced a de facto ban on onshore wind in 2015, English communities have lost out on millions and millions of pounds in community funding thanks to this dysfunctional UK/English Government.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Let us remind ourselves what Lords amendment 247B is about. Within 18 months of the Act being passed, the Secretary of State would be required to carry out a consultation and publish a report on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes. It would also require the Government to respond and bring forward proposals to remove the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes within six months of the consultation closing. That is the bare minimum that the Government could do. It would at least move the issue forward, and yet the Government still put forward a motion to disagree with it.
The Government say that they have already committed to consult on the barriers to local supply, but we still have not been given a date when that will actually happen. The Lords amendment would stop the Government’s current policy of dither and delay and require them to get on with taking community energy schemes forward.
Ultimately, the Government should not need to consult, because they are already well aware of what barriers face the sector; Community Energy England has told them repeatedly over the last five years. It is really disappointing, because there is even an all-party parliamentary group for community energy. Officials have engaged with the APPG, yet nothing has happened because the Government, despite warm words, are not really committed to community energy.
In 2021, the Environmental Audit Committee published a series of recommendations to encourage community energy. The only recommendation taken forward so far is the community energy fund, and even that does not yet have a launch date. I hope that the Minister will tell me when the launch date will be. When will we see the fund for community energy?
We are in the middle of an energy crisis. Bills have skyrocketed. Access to cheap, clean, home-produced energy has never been more vital. We need to secure our energy supply, protect consumers and reach net zero. As we have always said in the debate about reaching net zero, we need to take people with us. That is not about delaying targets, as the Government have just done, but about encouraging people to walk the difficult journey to net zero. Community energy does exactly that. Why are the Government not supporting it with all their might? Why are the Government not even supporting the Lords amendment? It is the bare minimum.
Community energy has the potential to power 2.2 million homes and save 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year. All it needs is a Government who give it the support that it deserves. I have seen at first hand the benefits that community energy can bring. In my Bath constituency, Bath and West Community Energy has installed enough renewables to power 4,500 homes. It has invested the money that it has earned back into my local community, donating nearly £330,000 to support environmental and fuel poverty schemes. That is what community energy can do. What is there not to support? Why are the Government not committed to doing all that they can to ensure that community energy projects can be delivered?
Wera Hobhouse
Unfortunately, the Government are unwilling to see the potential of community energy. Community energy schemes currently generate just 0.5% of the UK’s electricity. That is because—we know all this; we have said it many times—the financial, technical and operational requirements involved in becoming a licensed supplier put initial costs at more than £1 million. That is a massive risk for any new start-up or small scheme. Any community energy projects such as the one in Bath can exist only because it has reached a certain size. That is one of the problems.
The Government are aware of that fact, but voted to remove Lords amendments to rectify it. The Government need to start matching their supportive words about community energy with action. The most effective step that they could take would be to enable local supply and remove the regulatory barriers that prevent community energy schemes from selling their power to local customers. That could include a community right to connect to the grid ahead of commercial projects that deliver little or no social and community benefit. I am sure that I have answered the question that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was about to ask.
Community energy schemes are ready to provide clean, green energy that helps local communities. They are not asking for a huge amount of public money, just for the Government to stop blocking the system. In this time of energy uncertainty, having a reliable local supplier can only be positive. I fully support Lords amendment 274B to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on community energy. I urge everyone in this House to do the same.
Andrew Bowie
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this afternoon’s debate. I will first respond to some of the comments made by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan). I know that he does not like it very much, and would like it if it were not the case, but he is absolutely wrong and I have to correct him: this is not the English Government; this is the British Government. We are the Government of the entire United Kingdom—a United Kingdom of which Scotland remains a part and, if the opinion polls are anything to go by, will continue to remain a part of for quite some time.
The hon. Member has an obsession with decrying the nuclear industry as something that the Tories alone are obsessed with. Tell that to the Governments of France, Sweden, Finland, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Canada, the United States of America and more, who are reinvesting and restarting their own civil nuclear industry, as is the Labour Welsh Government, who are very much in favour of further investment in, and development of, nuclear. He raised the lack of funding for community energy projects; £10 million over two years is an incredibly generous offer. That is alongside other UK growth funding such as the UK shared prosperity fund, which community energy groups can access by working in partnership with their local authorities.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) asked when the community energy fund will be launched. It will be launched as soon as possible. We are aiming to launch applications to the fund as soon as we physically can.
My opposite number, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), is right that we have had a productive and constructive relationship when it comes to discussion of the Bill. The 72 hours that we spent together in Committee were beneficial to everybody’s health, I am sure, and to the development of Government policy on this matter. We have come some way from where we were when we started discussing how we would support community energy. He rightly praised the role that the sector has played during the passage of the Bill. The community energy sector has been incredibly receptive to our commitment to a consultation and to the £10 million fund.
John Redwood
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Did he notice that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) would not give way? She was arguing—the typical position of her party—that it knew all the answers before the consultation, yet it still wanted a very long, drawn-out consultation to avoid doing the answers.
Andrew Bowie
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I also noticed that—
Andrew Bowie
Two seconds. I will respond to the first intervention before I give way to the hon. Lady. I also noticed that she managed to answer a question that had not even been asked by my right hon. Friend.
Wera Hobhouse
The amendment also says that the Government should respond to the barriers and put forward proposals. That is really what we want to know: what is the response to any consultation? The Government have failed to give any response to that.
Andrew Bowie
We cannot respond to a consultation that has not been launched yet. We are in the process right now of working with the community energy contact group. In fact, it has already met. Work is under way right now to develop the consultation, identify what the barriers to market are, and get out there and support the community energy sector, as the Government are determined to do.
Dave Doogan
The Minister is very kind. He was re-emphasising the importance of the £10 million community energy investment that he is making in England over two years. The Scottish Government have been investing £5.5 million every year for the last 13 years. If he thinks that his investment is outstanding, how would he characterise the Scottish Government’s investment?
Andrew Bowie
I welcome all Governments’ investment in support of community energy projects across the United Kingdom, but this is a sharp change from the last time the hon. Member came to this place, when he was decrying the fact that we were not extending community energy packages across the United Kingdom. I think I had to inform and educate him that there was already a community benefits package in Scotland, operated by the Scottish Government. Yes, there are problems with that scheme, and we will learn from the difficulties that it has faced. That is why I am so sure that the scheme that we are launching—the £10 million to support community energy projects the length and breadth of the country—is the right one, working in tandem with the funds that are already available north of the border for community energy projects in my constituency and, indeed, in his.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test spoke about previous amendments on community energy. We have been clear that they would not provide the best outcomes for consumers. A right to local supply already exists, and Ofgem has existing flexibility to award supply licences that are restricted to certain geographies. We continue to believe that it is a commercial matter left to suppliers.
Lastly, I turn to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). Six months may be too soon, frankly, to adequately analyse the outcomes of the consultation. It must fully take into consideration wider interdependencies in the energy system. We will always aim to respond in a timely manner, but I would not want to put a strict timeframe in legislation.
The Government support our route to net zero. The Government are taking action to ensure that we are more energy secure and energy independent, and the Government are supporting community energy projects the length and breadth of the country. For that reason, we should disagree to the Lords amendment before us.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 274B.
Civil Aviation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.
To the casual and untutored eye, this might seem a very small piece of legislation to bring to the Floor of the House of Commons. However, it is not only important to the sector but a useful illustration of the work of Ministers and parliamentarians in Committee, so it is nice to have a chance to focus on these quite technical and not especially controversial regulations.
The regulations will be made under powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, which also rejoices in the name ATMUA. Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, that legislation created a more flexible set of powers for Ministers to implement alleviation measures for aircraft slots related to the impacts of covid-19, subject to a vote in both Houses. That allows the UK to adapt its approach so as to minimise disruption to consumers and support the recovery of the aviation sector. Under ordinary circumstances, airlines must operate aircraft slots 80% of the time to retain the right to those same slots the following year—that is known as the 80:20 rule, or the “use it or lose it” rule. It is designed to encourage a more efficient use of scarce airport capacity. As a result of the effect of covid-19 on air travel demand, however, alleviation from the rule has been provided since summer 2020.
The Department has seen a strong recovery in passenger demand during 2023, but there remains uncertainty and a lack of resilience in the industry, and demand on some routes remains below the levels seen before the pandemic. Those factors affect both demand, such as the number of returning passengers, as well as supply, such as aircraft availability and staffing. They add to what has been termed the long “covid tail” in rebuilding resilience in the sector. Thus, aircraft that were out of service during the pandemic now spend much longer in maintenance and overhaul than would normally be the case. That phenomenon is compounded by difficulties stemming from the pandemic, which have affected access to spare parts through global supply chains. Although the industry has taken steps to address those challenges, they are expected to remain an issue during 2024.
The Government have therefore designed a package of measures for the winter 2023 season to mitigate the adverse effects of that loss of resilience. The normal 80:20 rule on slots usage has been retained. However, it has been combined with some limited flexibility through a small pre-season hand-back allowance and a continuation of the previously adopted measures on the justified non-utilisation of slots. The Government have focused the measures on a return to business as usual. We are mindful of the need to balance supporting the sector through sensible and proportionate measures to aid its recovery and protecting consumers from disruption, with the need to avoid excessive alleviation, which could distort competition.
There are two key provisions. The enhanced justified non-utilisation of slots provisions were first introduced for winter 2022. They act as a safety net for airlines if new restrictions are introduced and they can justify not using slots. They protect the airlines’ historic rights to slots in scenarios in which any reintroduced covid-19 measures might severely reduce demand or the viability of a route. However, for any requests for justified non-utilisation of slots, a rationale must be given to the independent co-ordinator for assessment of its merits against the provisions.
The second provision is a limited slots hand-back. For this winter season, the Government will again allow carriers to claim alleviation on up to 5% of their slots at any airport handed back before the start of the season, as was done for this summer. The Government have offered that opportunity in the expectation that the industry will deliver a realistic schedule for winter 2023, thereby minimising last-minute cancellations and delays. The opportunity to hand back slots before the start of the season has been particularly useful in ensuring that airlines deliver a robust schedule, and has helped to provide certainty to consumers that scheduled flights will operate. The measures will cover the winter 2023 season. The Department for Transport is considering whether further alleviation may be required for future seasons.
Through these measures, the Government aim to strike a balance between supporting the sector and minimising disruption to consumers while encouraging recovery and ensuring the efficient use of slots.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Minister said that the regulations before the House are a small piece of legislation. He is right, and scholars of Parliament will look back at this motion coming to the Floor of the House as a strange occurrence. Usually, we are up in the gods in this place, in a draughty, dusty Committee room off a long corridor in this great edifice, but this Government have run out of legislation to consider in those Committee rooms, and have to bring this to the Floor of the House. They have run out of time, and they are fast running out of track.
When we talk about the general demise of transport in the United Kingdom, we can see that the Government came to Manchester to cancel HS2—they cancelled it to my city in my city. They announced a tram to my constituency that was opened in 2014, and they launched Network North, which sounds like a dodgy 1970s ITV franchise and was done on the back of a fag packet. The industry was not impressed by the fact that the Secretary of State—who is not here—was making up conspiracy theories on the floor of the conference hall about 20 mph zones and 15-minute cities.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way, but can I ask him what part of his speech is to do with slots and aviation?
Mike Kane
I am coming on to that. This is about the general demise of transport—about abandoning the centre ground and abandoning an industry. We do not even have a Minister for aviation or for maritime in the House of Commons, whereas we in Labour support aviation and maritime to the hilt. When the Secretary of State was making up those conspiracy theories, the Minister—who is so keen on active travel: he walks the walk, talks the talk, and rides his bike as well—must have had his head in his hands. We in Labour offer industry reassurance and hope that things will get better.
To respond to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), let us talk about the motion at hand. As we know, the “use it or lose it” rule was relaxed throughout the pandemic: it was dropped to 70:30 to ensure that no environmentally damaging ghost flights were taking off. That was the right decision. Slots are commercially important and highly prized by airlines, giving them a monopoly on a route. Since the pandemic, there has been a strong recovery in passenger numbers and we are all grateful for that. However, the aviation industry can still exhibit a lack of resilience and some uncertainty at times and some routes are still not yet at capacity.
The pandemic has left airlines and airports with little resilience and tight staffing numbers and, as the Minister has mentioned, there are issues with aircraft availability and the global supply chain. With the benefit of hindsight, the Government’s failure to support our world-class aviation sector during the pandemic has led us here. We, as well as workforce representatives and unions, warned the Government that, if tens of thousands of skilled, trained workers were sacked or let go during the pandemic, it would be nigh on impossible to get back up to full speed—to be dynamic and react to industry demands.
The two main provisions in the regulations act as a safety net for airlines. The first allows them to justify not using a slot if new restrictions are to be introduced on particular routes. Of course, I hope that that will never be necessary, but if it should be, what data and metrics will be used? Does the Minister have an agreed plan with industry on this?
The other main provision is a limited slot hand-back of up to 5% of all slots, which are to be handed back before the start of the season. The justification for that is to ensure minimum delay and cancellations for consumers; however, the autumn timetable begins in just 11 days. The explanatory memorandum says that passengers are expected to benefit from the relief contained in the legislation by retaining good levels of historic connectivity, but also points out the downside of this provision: a potential negative impact on the marketplace.
The regulations are important to enable more airlines to deliver realistic winter schedules, and should minimise the cancellations and delays that have blighted the industry over the past few years. As I referenced earlier, many of those problems were predicted and avoidable: we cannot hollow out a skilled workforce with security requirements and expect there to be no impact on the consumer. Can the Minister update me on the work the Government have done to strengthen consumer rights, ensuring that passengers are paid compensation and refunds that they are entitled to in a timely fashion? We know that many airlines sit on tens of millions of pounds-worth of vouchers that were claimed during the pandemic, which are due to run out for customers.
These measures were brought in under exceptional circumstances. In a previous debate of this nature with one of the Minister’s predecessors back in 2021, it was said that it would take until 2023 for air traffic volumes to increase back to 2019 levels. I believe the current figure is that, on average, we are at around 88% of those 2019 levels. Do the Government have a plan for what they will do in March 2024, four years after the first debate of this nature took place? The sector has still not bounced back fully.
In May this year, I raised the point that the Government’s approach was a very short-term one and, even taking that into consideration, impact assessments were not being fully carried out. The Minister at the time assured me that the Government would continue to monitor impacts as they went. Have they been doing so, and what are their findings? I am still keen to see a retrospective assessment of the impact of the measures to ensure that these steps are proportionate—neither too harsh nor too weak. Have the extraordinary circumstances we found ourselves in in 2020 now become the norm in the aviation sector? Earlier this year, the Minister suggested that there would be a consultation on slots reform later in the year. Could I be updated on the progress of that consultation?
I have previously raised—and will continue to raise—the issue of airspace modernisation, which I know is something the Minister was keen on when he held that post. That issue needs to be addressed strategically, so when will we see more progress on it? We could cut carbon tomorrow by 10%, 20% or 30% if we upgraded our airspace. We have an analogue system in a digital age. As passenger demand is still in a recovery phase and we feel the hangover of the covid pandemic industry-wide, it is more important than ever to consider ways to future-proof our airspace and achieve lower emissions in the process.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I am thrilled that this statutory instrument is being taken in the House—where I can talk about it—rather than up on the Committee corridor, because I would probably not have been selected to sit on that Committee.
On slots, my constituents are very concerned at the moment, not least about Luton airport, which has blighted my constituency with its overflying. That does not affect the town of Luton at all, even though the airport is owned by Luton Council. The flights massively affect the northern part of my constituency, particularly Markyate, Flamstead and the Gaddesdens.
Of course, we have a terrible situation at the moment with thousands of cars still trapped at Luton airport after the horrendous fire there. My constituents still cannot get to their vehicles, and they do not know when they will be able to. Flights are arriving and taking off, but there are still massive problems with parking, because the airport was never designed to be the size it is now.
I rise to speak on this because the Government have made a decision—I am pleased it was called in; and the decision was not made by Luton Council—that there will be a massive expansion of flights from Luton airport. I appreciate that this is not in the Minister’s portfolio, but I used to be the shadow Minister, and I know how it is for someone on the Front Bench: this may not be in his portfolio, but I am afraid he is going to cop it. It is a ridiculous decision to allow Luton airport to expand when there are so many complaints from residents not from Luton. We have seen the problem with the fire, but the airport is just not designed to be this size, and it is not geographically suitable.
I am not a hypocrite. Have I flown from Luton airport in the past? Yes, I have.
Sir Mike Penning
I hate to say this to the shadow Minister, but this is about slots at Luton airport—in a Labour-controlled constituency—which I thought he might be interested in, because my constituents really are.
I just want to put on the record that increased slots will cause increased pollution and increased noise for my constituents. The decision to allow increased number of flights—the expansion will almost double Luton airport—was fundamentally opposed by me, and it will be a very sad day when it goes ahead.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I have been so looking forward to this debate—now an annual debate—on airport slots. It was very good of the Leader of the House to invite us into the big room to discuss it, although I am not sure how much this will pad out this Session of Parliament, to be perfectly honest. I have spoken about this issue many times before. I will not be speaking for long, because of my voice and, ironically, because I am supposed to be meeting an airline as we speak.
The other reason I will not be speaking for long is that this is to do with the eight slot co-ordinated airports, not one of which is in Scotland. However, we clearly have a huge interest in this with domestic flights. Indeed, if the Government were to bring forward legislation on guaranteed slots for domestic travel, particularly to London airports from Glasgow airport in my constituency, I would be grateful indeed.
Clearly, we are not going to oppose this motion. The Government are displaying uncharacteristic common sense in this motion, so it is one we will be supporting.
Gavin Newlands
Indeed. It chills me to the bone to support Tory legislation, but here I am doing just that.
I will not repeat all the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). They included a question on consumer rights, which he so skilfully shoehorned into a debate on airport slots, so I congratulate him on that. In particular, he raised the issue of airspace modernisation, which I have raised a number of times over the years and have pushed this Government on. They really need to get a grip on modernisation and push on, but I look forward to the Minister’s answer. [Interruption.] I hope he is paying attention because I am about to sit down. We will support him, and I look forward to his answers to hon. Members’ questions.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
We Liberal Democrats were supportive of relaxing the 20:80 rule during covid; we could not have allowed airlines to fly empty flights just so they could keep their slots. The situation is now more complex. The dysfunction in the aviation industry now is just as much about managerial capacity failings as it is about the problems stemming from the pandemic.
There have been numerous allegations of abuse of the temporary rules by some airlines to flex their muscles in the marketplace. We must guard against anti-competitive practices, which make it hard for new entrants to enter the market. Alleged attempts to hoard valuable Heathrow slots have an impact on the availability, choice and price of flights. Airlines, airports and travel operators are one of the biggest single contributors to global emissions. It is crucial that we ensure that flights are taking off only when there is proper demand for them.
There has been recovery in passenger demand, but there is continued uncertainty and a lack of resilience in the industry. Recruitment remains a challenge. Demand on some routes remains below pre-pandemic levels, and changes to our working patterns have caused a drop in business travel. We must accept that these new patterns are the norm. The motion proposes a package of measures for the winter 2023 season that lets the normal 80:20 “use it or lose it” rule stay. However, there remains some limited flexibility for airlines to keep hold of their carrier slots at airports through a small pre-season hand-back allowance of 5%, and a continuation of the previously adopted justified non-utilisation of slots measures.
Although we are broadly supportive of the Government’s plans, we are concerned that there has not been parity of Government support for public transport. The rail industry and public transport such as buses are also facing changed markets. Railways still face a £2 billion annual fares shortfall from pre-covid days that the Government are unwilling to fill. The bus and coach industry is experiencing driver shortages. There is no justification for the Government to protect just one industry from inefficiencies and uncertainties in the market, and they must outline a timeline for when the covid mitigations given to airlines will come to an end. Why prioritise aviation over other modes of transportation? Airlines need clarity and time to prepare, but there must come a point when the Government tell industry that it needs to get on with things itself.
Jesse Norman
It is a delight to wind up this debate, and I thank colleagues who have spoken in what have been brief but deep and thoughtful exchanges. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) rightly pointed to the anti-competitive potential of these measures, and also highlighted their modesty and, therefore, the sensitivities—she is absolutely right about that. She is also right in her concern about ghost flights. At the risk of violently agreeing across the Chamber, I think she is also right on the question of how long these measures will continue for. I will address that issue further in my remarks.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), was right to point out that there is no direct Scottish interest in this, and I thank him, as I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for supporting this Conservative legislation. I hope it becomes a habit for the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, as it has done for his former colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron)—I think that is a useful development in SNP politics.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning)—[Interruption.] That is what I said. I said my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, as the record will show. I was very sorry to hear again about the situation that his constituents have faced in relation to what happened at Luton. I absolutely take on board, and the House will have noted, his comments and concerns about expansion and its impact locally. He will appreciate that, as with Active Travel, the bus and coach sectors, and other items raised in the debate, that issue has nothing to do with the subject of this debate, and he was rightly critical of those who would crowbar in things that are not relevant. However, the concern of any colleague is always relevant if it is a direct constituency matter. He was right to raise it and I thank him for that.
I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for his support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said, the joy of having this debate on the Floor of the House of Commons is that a wider range of colleagues can come and express a concern, and we can shine a little light on the statutory legislative process, which is of enormous importance to the conduct of this House and the two Chambers of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East asked about the metrics for use in relation to non-utilisation. Those are set out in the excitingly entitled “Principles of slot allocation” document at section 8.8, which concerns the “Justified non-utilisation of slots”, and those are the rules. To respond to his question about slots, obviously there is a consultation to be launched in due course, but those are the rules as they stand.
In relation to work on consumer rights, my right hon. Friend will be aware that on 27 June 2023 the Government published our response to the aviation consumer policy reform consultation, which set out legislative reform and non-legislative measures to ensure that passengers receive the best service possible. Among the non-legislative measures is a considerable range of efforts to work with industry on a variety of measures designed to accelerate and speed up the protection of those rights. He is absolutely right.
In relation to the use of these measures in future, Baroness Vere of Norbiton, the aviation Minister, said in the House of Lords recently that she was asking herself the question as to when these measures would wind up, and she hoped it would be soon. I think that represents the Government’s position.
It is true that we have a consultation planned on slots reform. Members will also note that the level of consultation that informs this set of measures is well spelled out in the explanatory memorandum to the legislation, and that sets out in some detail what conversations and discussions have been had with the industry, and it provides a fairly compelling background to these modest but flexible measures.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I am one of those people who came in here just to listen, because this debate was not being held in a dusty corridor somewhere upstairs—I am here to learn. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) that the Ministry decides the number of slots, but who decides who gets those slots? Is it the airport or some other body?
Jesse Norman
I had sat down, but I am happy to take a late question from my colleague. The number of slots derives from historical control over and entitlement to slots at existing airports, but there are also mechanisms for reallocating slots that have been handed back and for allocating slots when they become available. Those are conducted by an independent process and reviewed by an independent process, and there are no plans in this legislation to make any changes to that.
Sir Mike Penning
Going back to my speech earlier and the increase in slots at Luton airport, can the Minister indicate when the increase in flights will start to occur, so that I can inform my constituents how much of their life is going to be blighted even more by the flights from Luton airport?
Jesse Norman
I am not sure I quite caught the force of the question, because I was being interrupted when my right hon. Friend spoke.
Sir Mike Penning
What are the timescales for the increase in slots from Luton airport, now that the Government have given permission for the expansion of Luton airport? That will have a massive impact on my constituents, and I would like to inform them factually about what is going on.
Jesse Norman
Existing slots will follow the procedures laid out in the legislation. As regards future slots, they will be allocated according to the consultation that we will be launching shortly. I should say that this is the last intervention I will take, Madam Deputy Speaker, since I had sat down before the two previous ones.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The House will now be suspended pending the announcement of the results of the Select Committee Chair elections. The Division bells will be rung when the House is ready to resume.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now have the results of the election of Select Committee Chairs.
In the Business and Trade Committee Chair election, 471 votes were cast, 10 of which were invalid. The counting went to two rounds. There were 430 active votes in the second round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 216 votes. I can announce that Liam Byrne was elected Chair with 216 votes.
In the Petitions Committee Chair election, 467 votes were cast, eight of which were invalid. The counting went to two rounds. There were 433 active votes in the second round excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 217 votes. I can announce that Cat Smith was elected Chair with 227 votes.
In the Committee on Standards Chair election, 471 votes were cast, 14 of which were invalid. The quota to be reached was therefore 229 votes. I can announce that Ms Harriet Harman was elected Chair with 341 votes.
All three Chairs will take up their posts immediately and I congratulate them on their election. The results of the counts were under the alternative vote system and they will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and be published on the internet.
South Fylde Line
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be holding this debate with a fellow Lancashire Member of Parliament in the Chair. In fact, we have gone from one transport debate to another, albeit with a rather large gap in between. As a Lancashire MP yourself, you are more than well aware of the issues on our county’s rail network and of the need for modernisation of the infrastructure and rolling stock. Indeed, you have fought diligently on behalf of your constituents for exactly the improvements that I am fighting for for mine.
Today, I am pleased to be able to raise the subject of the South Fylde line. It is raised repeatedly not only on the doorsteps, but at local events and in written correspondence. Just standing on the platform at Preston station, people come up to me and say, “We need to do better than this.”
Throughout my time as Member of Parliament, I have fought to improve services. In this, we have seen progress. The dilapidated Pacer trains, which used to deposit waste directly on to the tracks, are thankfully a thing of the past. In 2018, I was delighted to reopen the modernised Kirkham and Wesham station following the installation of a new platform and two lifts serving it, providing, at long last, a station that was accessible to all.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my really good friend for allowing me to intervene. May I say that I am delighted to hear that news? I last went to that station in July 1969 when I was going to the nearby Weeton camp. I have to say that it was showing slight age then, and so, some 50 years later, I am really glad that it has been modernised.
Mark Menzies
Colonel Bob, not only has it been modernised, but I still speak to constituents who remember you passing through in 1969. Once my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath—
Mark Menzies
Sorry. Once my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has passed through, he is never forgotten.
The holy grail remains, however, the doubling of services on the line through the installation of a passing loop, and I am concerned that efforts in that area have, frankly, stalled. In June 2020, I submitted a full restoring your railway bid to double train services on the South Fylde line. The bid was one of 50 submitted, with the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, selecting it to be taken forward with Government funding to help to put together a strategic outline business case.
The SOBC was submitted in November 2021, and since then there has been no further progress or communication from the Department. My fellow bid partners and I feel slightly abandoned, with even the formal email address of restoring your railway now closed. My purpose today is therefore to seek assurances that the project continues to have the Government’s backing. The years of hard work that went into reaching that stage must not be allowed to fall by the wayside. Earlier this year, I launched the campaign to get the South Fylde line back on track.
I will give some context to where we find ourselves today. First opened in the 1840s, a little over a decade on from Stephenson’s Rocket, the history of the South Fylde line parallels the story of Victorian Britain and our railways more generally. Major expansion came in the latter decades of the 1800s, with new stations opening to serve the booming Victorian holiday industry. That was growing in Fylde, not just in the beach resorts and the residential communities that sprung up alongside them. They provided vital links for those commuting to Liverpool, Greater Manchester and the great mill towns of east Lancashire, where industry was booming.
The post-war era saw our railways enter a period of decline, with the rise of cars and dwindling passenger numbers, and of course Dr Beeching’s cuts would soon follow. Despite that, the South Fylde line survived as a two-track line until the 1980s, when the axe finally fell and the line was reduced to a single track capable of serving one train an hour in each direction. Recent years have seen something of a consensus reached around Beeching and the period of his cutbacks, and the closures that started with his report: they were a mistake. To echo the Prime Minister’s recent words, they were an example of an “old consensus” that favoured cars over public transport.
As the Minister knows from our correspondence on the topic, the South Fylde line falls far short of what is satisfactory, and is even further from being a good service. Reliability is a major issue, with one delay having an impact on services for the rest of the day, and a single track is neither the only issue nor the sole reason for the reliability issues. Be it staff sickness, driver shortages, faulty trains or signalling issues, Fylde’s commuters have heard it all. On a weekday evening, rail replacement services have become an increasingly common occurrence, turning a 20-minute train journey from Lytham to Preston into one lasting almost an hour.
In addition, Northern cut the frequency of weekend services in August, the peak of the summer tourist season, for reasons that remain unclear to me. Recent data from On Time Trains listed St Annes-on-the-Sea as the 2,204th ranked station for reliability, with all stations located beyond the line’s division at Kirkham and Wesham ranking similarly. Remarkably, that is an improvement from August, when the station fell outside the top 2,500, out of just 2,617 open railway stations across the UK. That is miserable reading for Fylde’s commuters and the many people who choose Fylde as a holiday destination. The train, I am afraid, is an unreliable option for them.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
My hon. Friend is articulating very well the problems on the line regarding punctuality, which we have seen for far too long. Of course, our aspiration for the South Fylde line is not just to improve punctuality but to double the number of trains that run on the line every hour. In both our constituencies, that would be of huge benefit to local tourism businesses in terms of creating jobs, inward investment and growth in our local economy. We both worked so hard to get the feasibility funding that was delivered now over three years ago. Would he urge our brilliant rail Minister to do everything that he can to try to look at creative solutions around the capacity issues at Preston, so that we can finally take the project forward and both our constituencies can benefit?
Mark Menzies
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Blackpool South gets huge numbers of visitors. Blackpool pleasure beach has its own train station, yet people choose not to take the train to one of the biggest visitor attractions in the UK; they come by other means. It is absolutely ludicrous. It is a real privilege to be able to welcome my hon. Friend, as he rows in behind my ongoing campaign for the South Fylde line. It is great when colleagues are working together for the same cause; it adds huge value.
As the SOBC pointed out, the rankings are based only on services that are formally recorded as cancelled. Services turned around before reaching the end of the line are not included, yet at Blackpool South, between March 2019 and March 2020, this occurred 173 times—the equivalent of 9.5 days-worth of services that did not complete the route. The problem has not gone away. For the stations not served, these are effectively cancellations, yet they do not appear in the statistics as such. Official figures are therefore significantly understating the problem.
HS2 may no longer be coming to Preston, but links across Lancashire and to nearby cities such as Liverpool and Manchester remain important. In addition, the west coast main line continues to offer frequent and relatively fast routes to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham and London. The cost of those trains is such that most people reserve seats on specific trains to have the certainty they need about their arrival time, which they simply do not have on a South Fylde line service.
The line travels through the heart of my constituency and we are deeply proud of it. We have several active friends groups, who work tirelessly to improve stations such as Lytham, St Anne’s-on-the-Sea and Squires Gate. I want to see more people on the trains, so that they can see and appreciate the work of the friends groups. One need only read local author Steve Garrill’s “Walks From The South Fylde Line”, or Community Rail Lancashire’s “Discover the South Fylde Line” to discover the trove of activities, be they leisure, cultural or entertainment, within reach of the line. Whether relaxing on St Annes beach and walking over the sand dunes, taking in the estuary views from Lytham Green, or testing your golfing skills at the world-class Royal Lytham, coastal Fylde has so much to offer and is a magnet for day-trippers and holidaymakers alike. Beyond Lytham St Annes is Blackpool pleasure beach, one of the country’s biggest visitor attractions. We also have a thriving night-time economy. All these activities are served by the unreliable and infrequent service on the South Fylde line.
As well as its fantastic hospitality and tourism offering, Fylde is a vibrant economic hub, and the rail line that serves it is vital for countless people commuting into or around Fylde and on to destinations beyond. A short walk from Salwick station, we have Springfields, for 75 years the home of British nuclear fuel manufacturing and a site that is primed to grow with the industry’s expansion in the drive for net zero. This season, AFC Fylde has returned to the National league—the fifth tier of English football—swelling crowds. Indeed, one of my London-based researchers told me about his experience of leaving a mid-week match at the start of injury time in the hope of catching the 9.30 pm train, missing the train by mere seconds, and instead having an hour’s wait on the platform for the next one. Similarly, supporters of nearby Blackpool and Preston North End will have had frustrating experiences getting to and from matches, despite the clubs’ stadiums lying a short distance from the South Fylde line.
I know from my time on the Transport Committee that my hon. Friend the Minister is passionate and has fought to ensure that his corner of East Sussex is served by a service that meets the needs of his constituents. I am privileged to have responding to this debate a Minister who understands the issues. When we served together on that Committee, he was never frightened of challenging the industry and holding it to account, and shining a light on shoddy, inadequate services. He does that for his constituents; I am doing it for mine.
Let us consider a comparison between Bexhill in the south-east of England, and Fylde, Lancashire. Bexhill has hourly trains to both London and Brighton, doubling to two in each direction during peak hours, with several additional trains to Eastbourne, Hastings and Ashford International. Battle sees twice-hourly services to London and Hastings, with an additional London train service running during peak times. Even Robertsbridge in my hon. Friend the Minister’s constituency—a village that, with a population of just over 2,000, is comparable to Wrea Green in my constituency—is connected to both London and Hastings by two trains an hour in each direction during peak times, with just 1% of services cancelled. That is the kind of connectivity that the Minister enjoys—he has fought for it—but the kind of which Fylde constituents can only dream. I am sure that he shares my resolve to put that right.
In response to the recent reliability issues that I mentioned, I ran a survey of my constituents to seek feedback on that topic. I will share a couple of examples that are representative of wider feedback and illustrate my point. These are the comments of a constituent:
“I’d love to be able to travel from Ansdell to my office in Liverpool but, with one train an hour meaning often poor connections—and then that one train being prone to cancellations, it’s rare that I feel I can risk it, so end up driving to Preston, which is longer and parking more expensive.”
That does nothing to help our carbon footprint.
Another said:
“If the trains were reliable then I would use them but, after having to find contingency plans at the last moment on too many occasions I no longer put myself through the stress of using them. Unfortunately, I often have to drive to Preston to rescue stranded family members when trains are cancelled with no reason! The train timetable we have at the moment fails to connect with the train timetables going North and South. If I am going to London I have to spend almost an hour waiting on a very cold and miserable platform and the same happens when I return. Likewise when travelling to Lancaster and further north. Why would I do it? I would park my car at Preston station and drive.”
That is just madness. It all comes at an environmental and financial cost, not to mention that it increases traffic on our roads at busy times. The inefficiency of having to drive to the mainline station at Preston, a dozen or so miles away, will not be lost on my hon. Friend the Minister. Passenger numbers are relatively low, which I contend is a direct result of the infrequency and unreliability of the trains, and has, I believe, led to under-investment in the line—a vicious circle that we must now break. If levelling up is to be more than a slogan, people in Fylde should not have to continue putting up with such abject service.
Let us look to the future and possible solutions. To refer back to the Prime Minister, I wholeheartedly agree with his statement that:
“What we really need is better transport connections in the north.”
The cap on bus fares is fantastic, and I am grateful to the Government for their investment in Fylde’s roads. The new Preston west distributor road—the Edith Rigby Way—has opened, along with a new junction to the M55, while the M55 link road, known as the Moss Road, and the A585 Singleton bypass, are fast approaching completion. However, as I mentioned at the start of the debate, the holy grail remains a return to twice-hourly trains on the South Fylde line. The most efficient way to achieve that is the installation of a passing loop around Ansdell, enabling trains to pass each other roughly halfway through the line’s route. We are not asking for anything extravagant—indeed, many of my constituents still remember a time when that line was dual track and services were more frequent. There was not a passing loop: the whole thing was dual track. As such, I believe that my ask on behalf of my constituents is modest, realistic and, above all, deliverable in a timely way.
The scrapping of the northern leg of HS2 in favour of investing in the road and rail connections that link our communities in the north delivers a great new chance to see this project become a reality. With £2.5 billion being allocated to local authorities to spend on projects in these areas, there is an opportunity to deliver lasting change for communities, such as delivering on the levelling up promises of recent years. As the Minister will recall, when I wrote to him this summer, one key obstacle he mentioned was the need to reserve capacity at Preston to allow certain platforms to be used for future HS2 services. That problem has now been made obsolete by the Prime Minister’s recent decision.
The previously submitted bid, which dates back to 2021, gave three options for the project, ranging from £23.9 million to £47.3 million. Those figures did not include the redevelopment of the former Royal Mail parcel platform at Preston for passenger services, which would instead have been carried out as part of HS2’s arrival, nor did they account for the inflation of the past two years, which has been particularly acute in the transport construction sector. I welcome that money, but with it being divided across the country and costs no doubt having risen, the Government may well still need to step in to support and help fund this critical project.
Rail connectivity is both our past and our future. Investment in it can help deliver economic opportunities for the future of Fylde’s hospitality, manufacturing and wider business sectors. The Government have been making that point in recent weeks, and I hope their words are followed by deeds. The passing loop is a project that we are crying out for, but it can become a reality only with the backing of both Government and local authorities. I hope that I can count on my hon. Friend the excellent Minister to help get the South Fylde line back on track. Let’s get on with it.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this debate on enhancements to passenger services on the South Fylde line. I really do appreciate his continued support for improving that line and the campaigns he has led on behalf of his constituents. He has been particularly kind to me, so let me reply in kind.
I served alongside my hon. Friend on the Transport Select Committee. He works incredibly hard, not just for his own constituents and their transport needs but for all constituents across this country, and I certainly appreciate that work. He now holds me to account, and he does so particularly well. I am grateful to him, and to Community Rail Lancashire and the South Fylde Line Community Rail Partnership, for all their work on the “Discover the South Fylde Line” guide. I am also grateful to the local volunteers involved in revamping the cycle shelter at St Annes-on-the-Sea station as part of its 150th anniversary back in the summer. There is more that my hon. Friend does, and I am keen to help him do more—he will know that that is genuinely meant.
I also understand the points that he makes about the reliability of the services on that line, their frequency and the ultimate knock-on effects for passengers, particularly those looking to make their connections to the west coast main line. I acknowledge that cancellations continue to be a challenge for Northern, largely due to sickness rates being higher than average, training requirements to bring more drivers into service, and aspects of Sunday working. I assure my hon. Friend and the entire House that Northern recognises that challenge and is continuing to progress its improvement plans; admittedly, though, some of these aspects will be addressed only through wider reform. My hon. Friend will be aware that, with Sunday working being voluntary on Northern, we will have to reform the railway to ensure it works in the way that its passengers insist it should work. That is currently with the trade unions, and we are looking to them to play their part so that we can deliver a service that is fit for this century.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of more frequent and reliable rail services to support his area’s visitor economy, and I hear the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) in that regard. They both make the entirely reasonable point that relatively low passenger numbers on the South Fylde line may be due in part to a lack of reliability and therefore of trust in the line’s services. It is a cycle we need to break and for which we need to find a solution.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde for sponsoring a bid to my Department’s restoring your railway programme. As he obviously knows—indeed, he referred it, but for good order I repeat it—the bid calls for the introduction of a passing loop on the South Fylde line to allow for the doubling of services from one train per hour to two trains per hour. I hear his call, and I want to assist him. He is right that we have had a particular challenge at Preston. We have discussed that, and he has bought forward solutions. I also hear him when he says that some of those issues may go away with the change to HS2, and I am particularly keen to see if we now have a solution that we can put in place. These matters will take some time, as we work out the consequences of the decision to move away from the final phases of HS2 towards Network North. However, I can tell him that I will be looking with my officials to see if we now have a solution, and if that is the case, I want to be in a position to help him. I am not yet in a position to confirm the outcome of the bid, but I will be in contact with my hon. Friend in due course, and I am very happy to meet him so that he can challenge me and officials if he disagrees with our conclusions.
My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the comments by the Prime Minister about the need for better transport connections across the north. That is exactly why we have announced the Network North strategy, which will deliver improvements to various transport modes in the north of England, not just on rail. I know my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will have welcomed the announcement of a brand-new £2.5 billion fund to transform local transport in 14 rural counties, smaller cities and towns in every part of the north. That will cover the big city regions, but also areas outside them. Notably, it could include more trams for Blackpool.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Prime Minister’s announcement on HS2 opens up the conversation and allows us to explore possibilities for transport projects that will be locally led and the effects of which will be more locally felt. I am very keen to work with him, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South and other hon. Members on how we harness those possibilities and target improvements where they feel they are most needed. I also want to highlight that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has agreed that Cottam Parkway station on the Preston to Blackpool line should develop its full business case under the transforming cities fund. This is another example of how this Government are delivering for the north of England.
To conclude, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, who I believe may be about to stand up and intervene—[Interruption.] No, I got that wrong; he is just excited that I am getting him to the end, as I am sure you are, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank him for securing this debate, and for all he does to get everything his constituents need; he is assiduous in that regard. I want to assure him that I take on board the points he makes about the South Fylde line, and that my door is open to him to come and discuss the wider transport opportunities that will benefit his constituents under Network North. I also assure him that the loop and the issue at Preston will be looked at again, and I hope we will find a solution that will finally deliver for him and his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Face to face banking services
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK Support for Stability in Libya
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for stability in Libya.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms McDonagh.
I want to begin by sending my best wishes to all Libyans who have been affected by the horrific floods that have killed thousands in the east of the country and have displaced many more. In Derna, a town with a population of just 90,000, at least 4,000 people have been confirmed dead and another 10,000 have been reported missing. It was the last thing Libya needed. The death toll was clearly exacerbated by an inability to cope with a crisis of such magnitude, as well as by the lack of proper infrastructure.
I last visited Libya in 2005 with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Although we were not able to meet the then leader Colonel Gaddafi—or President Gaddafi —we were able to meet Moussa Koussa, his de facto deputy. It was a deeply disturbing experience being in Libya, a place with no road signs. Tripoli was a city where you could not find your way around unless you had been there before, because there were no directions and no street names—no nothing, in fact—and we were spied on in the hotel we stayed in. A lot has changed since that day, that year, that era. It is questionable whether it is better or worse now.
Since I applied for this debate, the world has become an even more unstable place. The conflict between Israel and Hamas has shaken the middle east and north Africa to the core. The increased instability makes this debate even more important than it was before. I want to put on the record my condolences to all the innocent Israelis who have lost loved ones as a result of the Hamas terrorist attacks, and to everyone in the region, especially in Gaza, who has lost their life as part of the wider conflict.
As we begin this important debate, it may be beneficial to look at the chequered history of Libya, a country that went from being part of the Roman empire to being part of the Ottoman empire. It was briefly an Italian colony in the 1920s and ’30s and became a monarchy under King Idris from 1951 to 1969, and then effectively a dictatorship under Gaddafi for 42 years. I realise that we do not have time for a full history of Libya, but that gives a brief background. It is right on the edge of Europe, in north Africa—the closest point to the European continent apart from Tangier and Gibraltar.
Some Libyans will have lived under four different kinds of Government, continually suffering from one type of Government to the next. After the 2011 revolution, there were elections in 2012 and 2014, but, sadly, division continued and the country fractured into competing groups. A UN-led peace effort brought the Libya political agreement of December 2015, which established the Government of national unity in Tripoli. That Government failed to unite the country. Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, a Libyan warlord, attacked Tripoli in April 2019, assisted by Wagner Group mercenaries, but was beaten back with the help of Turkish forces. A ceasefire was signed in October 2020, which led to another political attempt to appoint a Government of national accord in Tripoli headed by Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh. That also failed to unite the country. The House of Representatives—the national Parliament that was elected in 2014—then appointed a rival Government of national stability based in Benghazi.
Divisions continue to the present day. Libya effectively has two Governments, two Assemblies, rogue warlords and militias very often armed by outside countries and groups that have an interest in what is happening in Libya, especially its natural resources. Tragically, ordinary Libyans have little say in the direction of their country. The legacy of Gaddafi and the failure of the revolution is illustrated in the tragedy of Derna: a lack of effective institutions of the state; a failure to invest in infrastructure, training and capacity building; widespread corruption; a political class that lines its own pockets rather than serving the people; and the inability of the nascent civil society to find its voice.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He is outlining the relatively recent history of Libya. Does he agree that there could well be progress not only in Libya, but in the wider region and even here in the UK, where there are £12 billion of frozen assets from the Libyan regime, particularly under Gaddafi? Gaddafi and others supplied terrorist material to the likes of the Provisional IRA. Many innocent victims here could benefit, as well as, more fundamentally, people in Libya and the wider middle east.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Member for his timely intervention. I will go on to talk about why Libya matters to us in the UK, but he is absolutely right to say that for decades, or certainly for many years, Gaddafi and his so-called Government were funding terror groups throughout the world, especially in Ireland, in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom. What happens in Libya in future, and the role that we and the British Government can play, matters to all of us—not just in the UK, but across Europe, the wider middle east and north Africa. It is clear to me that Libya is a failed state and has been one for some time. I will now say why, as the hon. Member pointed out, it matters to us.
Libya’s long Mediterranean coastline is within a few hundred miles of the southern flank of NATO, and there are over 500 Russian mercenaries controlling part of the country. Given the growing Russian aggression and involvement in Libya, this has clear security implications for the alliance. The Opposition’s commitment to preserving that security is unshakeable, as I am sure is the case for all Members across the House. Libya’s long, porous border with countries of the Sahel has also been a route for drugs and people-smuggling and is now one of the main routes for migrants to cross the desert and take boats across the Mediterranean. The conditions in which the migrants are held are terrible and terrifying and are a major abuse of humanitarian standards and basic human rights. This was exacerbated hugely by the recent floods.
As I said in response to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Libya matters for our nation’s security. The lack of effective government in Libya has allowed warped ideologies to thrive. The terrorist attacks in Tunisia in 2015, in which 30 British tourists were killed, including two people from Leeds, were carried out by a Tunisian trained in Libya. The Manchester bombing of 2017 was carried out by a British Libyan radicalised in Libya. If we are serious about protecting the United Kingdom from terrorism, we must be serious about restoring legitimate government to Libya.
As we know, Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. At the moment, it produces 1 million barrels per day and large quantities of natural gas. We are rightly looking to wean ourselves off Russian gas, and this could play a part, but it is important to note that the huge unpopulated areas of Libya are also perfect for solar farms and other renewable sources.
When I held the role of shadow Minister with responsibility for the region, I worked closely with our allies and partner organisations to develop a potential road map for peace in Libya. This was ambitious, but if we do not operate with ambition, we will never achieve anything worthy of defending the rights and wellbeing of the Libyan people, as well as the wider area.
The year 2011 should have been an opportunity for a new start in Libya, but it was not. That is thanks in no small part to a variety of international actors who have intervened in Libya for self-serving reasons, whether that be an attempt to access an abundance of natural resources or the geopolitical advantages of having a sympathetic Government installed in north Africa. Sadly, that has been to the detriment of the Libyan people, who have continually suffered hugely. Healthcare services are dire, access to electricity is extremely limited and the ongoing lack of security has left thousands displaced. As the penholder for Libya at the United Nations, the United Kingdom must play its part in alleviating the suffering of millions of Libyans. We can do it, and we should and must.
The implications of the lack of a co-ordinated international response to the crisis in Libya and of the outright failure of Libyan state institutions have contributed significantly to the refugee crisis, with a subsequent impact on the UK’s strategic interests in the region. It is time for the United Kingdom to work with the UN to ensure that Libya can begin to repair the horrific damage that it has faced after years of political instability and civil war. In the past, the international approach has lacked understanding of the situation on the ground in the country. It failed properly to understand the political, military, social and ethnic circumstances that have fuelled the conflict. I therefore urge the UK Government to take a leading role in convening an urgent high-level meeting of all the state parties involved in Libya, including France, Italy, Germany, Turkey, Russia, Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as, of course, the United States. Those parties should meet regularly to assess the situation and to help Libya to heal itself.
The United Kingdom should also urge all foreign powers to withdraw military personnel from Libya immediately, end the supply of military equipment and mercenaries to the country, ensure that the UN is able to investigate any reports that the permanent ceasefire agreement has been violated, and ensure that all foreign fighters leave the country within three months as per the 23 October ceasefire arrangement. We must ensure that the United Nations is able to uphold its arms embargo by allowing all inspections of cargo entering Libya to be carried out in full, and we must condemn those countries that continue to allow arms to enter Libya.
There must be a leader in mediating the negotiation of a political settlement between the main power brokers that ensures a just distribution of the country’s wealth and enormous potential wealth, and opens the way for the unification of key national institutions including the Libyan army, the Libyan central bank and the National Oil Corporation. That leader must also urgently collaborate with all external powers to ensure that the Libyan economy can be reformed, as it is one of the fundamental drivers of the conflict and a root cause of violence, displaced people and corruption. Some of the people I spoke to in preparing for today’s debate told me that if only Libya had a properly functioning economy that worked well, many of the migrants who come from sub-Saharan Africa and eventually end up on the shores of Europe—some of them come to the UK—would be content to work within the economy of Libya and send remittances back to their home countries, communities, towns and villages, and that would stop them wanting to come across the Mediterranean sea and into Europe. That is something we need to work towards.
The aims should also work towards the ultimate goal of a transition to constitutional governance with peaceful and fully democratic parliamentary and presidential elections. I believe that that will end slavery, people-trafficking and arbitrary deportations. It will step up the help to improve the lives and wellbeing of the Libyan people in order to alleviate the refugee crisis and prevent any further loss of life for those who are forced to cross the Mediterranean in perilous conditions. It is in our economic and strategic interests, too.
I welcome the discussion that took place earlier this week at the Security Council meeting, including the renewal of the mandate for the United Nations Support Mission in Libya, but we need action, not more words. Earlier this year, the Security Council reaffirmed its strong commitment to an
“inclusive, Libyan-led and Libyan-owned political process”
facilitated by the United Nations. Now is the time to make it happen.
I thank the House of Commons Library and the former UK ambassador to Libya, Peter Millett, for their assistance with today’s debate. I also thank all Members for attending this morning to discuss such a vital issue.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms McDonagh. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing this important debate.
My strong interest in Libya stems from my childhood experiences. As the only Conservative Member of Parliament to have been born in a communist country—communist Poland, of course—it is difficult to explain to young people today how there was no food in the shops and everything was rationed. We could not get chocolate, exotic fruits or anything like that, but my aunt and uncle were sent to work in Tripoli and would send back cases of oranges. For a child in communist Poland, oranges were like something extraordinary from outer space, because we could not see them or buy them. I took them to school; we drew paintings of them; we made marmalade out of the peel. We talked about Libya, looked at it on the map and thought of it as some sort of paradise because it had these exotic fruits that we in communist Poland could not have. That is why I became chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Libya in 2006, shortly after being elected.
I then decided to write a book on Colonel Gaddafi. It is in my office; I forgot to bring it, but I wish I had. I wrote that book about Libya because I was extremely concerned about the rapprochement that Mr Blair, the then Labour Prime Minister, was implementing in trying to bring Gaddafi in from the cold. We all remember the scenes of Mr Blair smiling with Colonel Gaddafi in the tent outside Tripoli. I felt that that was the wrong approach, bearing in mind all our outstanding issues with Colonel Gaddafi. Simply to bring him in from the cold without dealing with those issues was, I think, wrong. More importantly, the Arab world thought it was wrong. Colonel Gaddafi was perceived as a recalcitrant, unstable and highly unreliable individual within the Arab world and among Arab leaders. For the United Kingdom to have so clearly bent over backwards to accommodate this man was felt to be inappropriate by many in the Arab world at the time.
I tried to campaign on the issue with the then Labour Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. I got absolutely nowhere, which is why I decided to write the book. I have to say it was a fascinating experience. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) says, there are so many outstanding issues that were left unresolved. Lockerbie, the worst terrorist atrocity on UK soil, was a result of Colonel Gaddafi sponsoring the bombing of the airliner over Scotland in 1988. There is also the funding and sending of Semtex to the IRA. However, the most poignant issue that I came across during the time I was writing the book was the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher in St James’s Square, just outside the Libyan embassy. When I go through the square now, I still pause for a moment in front of the beautiful plaque that commemorates her.
PC Yvonne Fletcher was a serving police officer who was guarding a demonstration outside the Libyan People’s Bureau when somebody from the embassy shot her. I have met PC Murray, who was at the scene and was with PC Fletcher in the ambulance as she was taken to hospital. He has led a decades-long campaign to find PC Yvonne Fletcher’s killer and have him brought to justice here in the United Kingdom. For her memory as a serving police officer, we must continue to raise the issue in the House of Commons.
The revolution came in 2011, one year after I wrote my book. I remember February 2011 so well: we had wall-to-wall coverage on our television screens of the revolution that started in Tobruk and swept across the whole of Libya. In the House of Commons, the scenario was that this disaster was happening and that something had to be done about it. I am not prone to criticising Conservative politicians, but I will on this occasion. Mr Cameron, the then Conservative Prime Minister, intervened; he planned the invasion with Monsieur Hollande, the French President, on the back of a fag packet, without any consideration. It is easy to kill the dictator, but what happens when we cut off the head? All the tentacles collapse. Like the hon. Member for Leeds North East, I have been to Libya on many occasions. The country was almost a carbon copy of President Saddam Hussein’s Iraq: everything—all the apparatus across the country—was controlled by one party and one man.
I remember well that we were whipped to vote for the invasion. From memory, I think that just a handful of Conservative MPs rebelled, and I very much regret that I was not one of them. The Conservative MPs who rebelled against Mr Cameron absolutely got it right, because there was not enough planning for the invasion of Libya. We bombed Libya back to the stone age. It is very easy to take on somebody like Colonel Gaddafi, who had obsolete Soviet-era equipment, poor radar and tanks and all the rest of it, but we bombed Libya with very little thought as to what would follow.
I asked to see Mr Cameron two or three days before Colonel Gaddafi was killed. I went to his office. I knew he was not listening to a word I was saying, because throughout the whole conversation he was signing bottles of House of Commons Scotch for raffle and auction prizes. One rather knows that somebody is not listening when, while one tries to raise important issues with them, they are doing a secondary task—signing their name on bottles of Scotch. [Interruption.] This is my book on Colonel Gaddafi, which I wrote in 2010; I spent over two years writing it.
Daniel Kawczynski
I asked Mr Cameron, “What is going to happen to Colonel Gaddafi?” We all know how Gaddafi was killed: a convoy was leaving Sirte for the desert, and British and French military intelligence, in collaboration with the militants, got him in the tunnel and he was killed. Of course, he had to be killed. Some people said that he had to be silenced—that he knew too much. The hon. Member for Leeds North East will remember the allegations about all the funding from Colonel Gaddafi to Monsieur Sarkozy; apparently Gaddafi gave Sarkozy millions of dollars for political campaigns. He had to be silenced. I will never forget the words that Mr Cameron said to me. He sort of metaphorically patted me on the head and said, “Nothing to worry about—it’s all in hand, old boy.” Two or three days later, Colonel Gaddafi was killed.
I am no apologist for Colonel Gaddafi. He was a brutal, evil dictator who suppressed his own people, and my book chronicles the extraordinary human rights abuses that he implemented against his own people in Libya. Nobody here will shed a tear that Colonel Gaddafi is no longer running Libya or able to suppress his own people, but the reason I raise it is that we have to think about the mistakes we are making as a nation, whether that is in Iraq or Libya. Certainly in my time as a Member of Parliament, every time we have intervened in an Arab nation, rather than leaving it to the Arab League or the Arab people, and killed the dictator, what has ensued? Total chaos, total paralysis, internecine warfare, and brutality and killing that one could argue is of even greater consequence and destabilisation than what took place under the dictator. I very much hope that future generations of Members of Parliament will learn from our experiences and the mistakes we have made.
When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee in that brief Parliament from 2015 to 2017, there was an attempt to investigate Mr Cameron. There was an attempt at that stage to investigate how he had brought us to intervene in Libya, but in reality it got us nowhere and little was done.
I would like to put it on the record how deeply disappointing it is that so few Members of Parliament are here. There is not one Conservative Member in this Chamber apart from the Minister and the Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). Bearing in mind our responsibility as a party and as a Government for the intervention in that country and the extraordinary misery that the Libyan people continue to experience as a result, that is a very bad show from my party.
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East for bringing the debate here. Despite all the difficulties we are seeing in Israel and the Gaza strip and in Ukraine, we must not forget about Libya. These are our neighbours in the underbelly of the Mediterranean—in a country now being used, as a result of our intervention, for the massive trafficking of people from sub-Saharan Africa through Libya to Lampedusa and beyond. As British parliamentarians, particularly after our intervention in that country, we have a duty and a responsibility to continue to help the people of Libya.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
There being no other Back-Bench speakers, I call the first Front-Bench speaker.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. This is an unusual experience, because I cannot remember the last time that I looked over my shoulder and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was not there. Perhaps we should send out a search party.
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing the debate and for his thoughtful and considered opening speech. He is absolutely right that Libya’s proximity to Europe makes what happens there relevant to us and to our neighbours. What he said was echoed by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski): we have a responsibility to Libya, to what goes on there and to putting it right. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East said, the political chaos that we are seeing—with two Governments, two Assemblies and an assortment of warlords battling for control of and access to Libya’s vast resources—makes this a pressing problem. We cannot ignore the political chaos in Libya that affects the everyday lives of ordinary Libyan people.
This debate is also important because, perhaps understandably in the light of what has happened elsewhere in the past few days and weeks, the tragic events of 10 September in Derna seem a long time ago. But the people of Derna will live with that tragedy every single day and will have to live with it for a long time. It is absolutely right today that when we talk about Libya, we take the time to consider what happened in Derna, why it happened and what we, as the United Kingdom, can do to help in providing humanitarian aid to help those people to rebuild their shattered lives. Indeed, that goes beyond Derna to the whole of Libya.
I therefore thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East for giving us the opportunity to have today’s debate. He is absolutely right that what we are seeing in Derna is almost a microcosm of the failed state of Libya. It has all the hallmarks of that failed state: the presence of foreign mercenaries, which he talked about, and the export of international terrorism, as we have suffered to our grave cost on these shores. Those are a result of that failed state.
I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham for bringing up the memory of Yvonne Fletcher. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) has campaigned passionately in this House never to allow Yvonne Fletcher’s memory to be forgotten and has ceaselessly campaigned for justice.
As we have said, Libya is a failed state, and what we see in Derna and in that devastating flood was caused by a mixture of climate change and systematic neglect of infrastructure. Officially, we are told that there are 4,000 dead, but the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs believes that it is more than 11,000. There are still 10,000 people missing, 40,000 people displaced with nowhere to go, and 20,000 people living without basic sanitation and hygiene. The city’s infrastructure was torn apart, with 120 schools damaged, a similar number of health facilities put out of action, and 11,000 buildings either damaged or completely destroyed. The scale of the disaster is unimaginable, and rebuilding Derna is a real challenge.
There is an understandable anger among the people there, because they are the ones having to live with the consequences of this failed state—of not having a functioning Government. Little wonder, then, that they rose up as much as they could—Libyan citizens, civil society groups and human rights defenders—and lodged a petition calling on the international community to establish an investigation into why this happened, to identify the culprits and to bring them to justice.
Those demands come as the Libyan officials are trying to dismiss what happened as purely an effect of climate change. Of course climate change played a part, but so did systematic neglect and the consequences of a completely failed political system. As the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, a decision was taken— I think his quote was “We bombed Libya back to the stone age”—without a thought as to what would happen subsequently. Well, this is what happens when things like that happen without any thought for the future.
A decade or more of armed conflict between rival authorities and the collapse of the dam in Derna are not separate issues. The war has eroded national institutions, the infrastructure of the state has gone, and the economy is in chaos. That is leaving people vulnerable and exposed, particularly to the effects of extreme climate change. Some $2 million went to support and maintain the dam at Derna. At a time of dire political chaos, in all likelihood that money was never spent on civil infrastructure. Even at the collapse of the dam, the United Nations could not get its people into Derna to help with the aid relief. The Libyan authorities even refused entry to a UN team who had gone to try to help. That is the reality for people living in Derna and in Libya at the moment.
We must understand that we have a responsibility. There are consequences of localised or national instability, but also global considerations, which the United Kingdom must address if it is to help the most vulnerable people, particularly in the face of a climate emergency. As always, climate change bites harder at those who are least responsible for its creation, and what we have seen in Libya is the all too painful reality caused by political insecurity and instability. We must take responsibility. If we do not, the situation in Libya is only going to get worse.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East talked about the people-smuggling and drug-smuggling—all products of a failed state. We and our young people will suffer when that reaches our shore. We must tackle this at source, and that means investing properly in the future of Libya. We can never again get to a situation where we decide on regime change without a single thought or consideration for what it will mean further down the line. We must understand and see that what happened and what we did in Libya were not consequence-free. We are living with that at the moment.
In the time I have left, I will make the point that all this leads back to the real-life consequence of the Government’s decision to slash their overseas aid budget. We are no longer at the forefront of countries giving support to African nations. When the Government look back on their decision to cut the 0.7% target, they really must ask themselves whether it was worth it. We are living with the consequences of that decision right now. The aid budget has never been more needed, as people’s lives are being torn apart by war, by the consequences of climate disaster and, as I said, by living in a failed state. That might be a debate for another day.
I urge the Government to make assisting the people of Libya, and getting as much stability as possible, one of their main priorities. If they do not, we will live with the consequences for a long time to come.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments made earlier about the situation we face in Israel and Gaza. I think I speak for everybody when I say that our hearts go out to those people who have lost their lives and to those people who may, sadly, lose their lives in the near future. We must do everything we can to secure peace in that troubled area.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this important debate and on the incredibly knowledgeable and sensitive way in which he introduced it. He is a friend and colleague, and I know full well how much work he has done in this subject area over a long period of time. We really value and respect his knowledge. We have also heard about the background to where we are today; I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for the information he gave us, and I will cite him. I promise him that I will buy a copy of his book and read it as well.
Since the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi, we have seen conflict and division in Libya. We have seen the involvement of foreign forces, and the Wagner Group is still present and holds territory. We have seen a ceasefire in the country and it is good that that ceasefire is largely holding, but we have nevertheless seen tremendous instability and insecurity for some time. I was mindful of the situation when I read a report by an international consultancy that was written earlier this month. I will quote from it because it is an accurate summary of the situation:
“The security situation will likely remain unstable nationwide…primarily due to intermittent fighting and armed clashes between various rival militia groups across the country. Competing governmental institutions, as well as geopolitical rivalries, have profoundly complicated the security situation in Libya. Kidnapping incidents, political assassinations, criminal activity, and clashes between opposing militia groups are the most severe problems.”
But that is not all. There is also growing instability in the south of the country because of the instability in the Sahel region. Militant organisations are developing there and intruding into Libya, causing further instability and worsening the migration crisis that so many countries in southern Europe face. That is the backdrop to the terrible disaster that occurred in the aftermath of Storm Daniel. We all saw the terrible scenes on our television screens following the breaking of two dams in the Derna valley. Estimates are still unclear, but some say that as many as 20,000 people may have lost their lives. Bodies are continually being recovered, and 48,000 people have been displaced in the region.
There are various suggestions as to why the dams broke, but it is clear to me that, despite international assistance, those dams had not been serviced properly and there was no insurance to make them safe. That is indicative of the malaise in the country. We also saw that in the difficulty with the international response to the disaster. It was evident that the governmental infrastructure was not in place to provide the framework for the international community to effectively deliver and administer aid.
We need a strong road map to bring a degree of political stability and democracy to the country. Just a few years ago, we saw efforts to create a road map. It was pencilled in that there should be presidential elections in December 2021. It is extremely disappointing that, despite the hopes at the time, those aspirations came to nothing and there were no direct elections. Since then, the instability has continued. It is extremely important that the United Kingdom, especially as it is a penholder on Libya at the United Nations, does everything possible to ensure that there is patience, stability, tenacity and, above all, hope for a political settlement and for elections to be held in the not-too-distant future.
I read the comments of the British permanent representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Barbara Woodward, with great interest and some hope. She said in a debate on Libya at the Security Council in June that it is important that the international community do everything it can to bring about “stability” and a “clear road map”. She stated that it was therefore necessary to have more discussions among as many stakeholders as possible, and with the ordinary people themselves, to ensure that that road map had a large measure of support across the country. She also mentioned, correctly, that that was the hope of ordinary people in Libya. It is all too easy to forget what is vital for ordinary people’s livelihood and, indeed, survival, but there is a coherent political framework. We tend to focus too much on political elites and what is appropriate for the so-called political class, when it is the people we should always be concerned about.
It is equally important that when we talk about a political framework, we do not talk in abstractions. Politics in Libya, perhaps more than in any other country currently, is about creating a framework for the people, to allow them to live their lives properly in peace and security. The ambassador cited her visit to Libya when she was taken to a World Health Organisation health centre project, partly funded by the United Kingdom. Despite all the difficulties surrounding that project, it is successful. There has been a British contribution of $2.5 million. The project is important because it symbolises hope for the country. It offers the chance of proper healthcare, antenatal checks, dental treatment, primary care and much else besides. But for projects like that to flourish, a strong, coherent political framework is necessary.
I hope very much that the Minister can give a firm commitment that Britain will stay the course and that we will give support for as long as it takes to ensure that there is a political road map that leads to democratic elections. The days when we can think that what happens in one country some way away is of no relevance to us in this country are long gone. We live in a global community. What happens in one country, practically as well as morally, has an impact on our life in this country, so I hope that the Minister is able to reaffirm the British Government’s commitment to ensuring that there is a coherent, well-supported road map that will come to fruition in the not-too-distant future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
As always, Ms McDonagh, it is an honour to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate. He has a wealth of knowledge on things international, particularly in the middle east. It is very unusual to see him in his current seat—I normally associate him with the Front Bench opposite me—but reshuffles are what they are.
I welcome the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) to his place, and I welcome his wise words on these important issues. It is good to hear that views are generally shared across the Chamber. There is a real responsibility to help the situation in Libya, and I assure the hon. Member that we are absolutely committed to that task.
As the whole House heard from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday, following the absolutely abhorrent attacks on Israel, the Government are doing all they can to prevent instability spreading in the region. I therefore welcome even more the opportunity to debate our work on Libya in that context. Like other Members, I send my condolences and those of His Majesty’s Government to Israelis who have lost loved ones in the terrible attacks and to Palestinian people who are suffering. I am also very mindful of those here in the UK who feel threatened, whether by antisemitism or anti-Muslim views. This is a time for calm and for us to hold on to the British values of tolerance and mutual respect. I hope that that will continue over the days and weeks ahead.
I am grateful to Members for their contributions to this important debate and will seek to respond to their points. An inclusive, representative political dialogue is the only way to overcome the current impasse in Libya. The UK fully backs a Libyan-led, UN-facilitated political process, which offers the best route to peace and stability. Elections remain a clear goal, and addressing the obstacles that prevented them from taking place in December 2021 is key to getting Libya back on track. The UK is using our position as UN Security Council penholder and working alongside international partners to support the UN mission in Libya. It is clear from the response to the recent devastating floods that the status quo cannot deliver what the Libyan people need. The political impasse threatens stability in Libya and in the broader region, and the people of Libya are losing out every day.
Libya, as a country with enviable human and economic resources—as spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski)—has the potential to be a global competitor on issues from healthcare to education, and a political settlement would unlock that potential. We also recognise the important role that a stable Libya could play, as a regional partner, in helping to address challenges from climate change to irregular migration, which has been mentioned a couple of times. The UK therefore supports initiatives on economic development and investment. UK and Libyan businesses have long worked hand in hand, with large volumes of trade between our two nations, totalling £1.5 billion in the past year. A thriving private sector can support stability, drive growth, create jobs and diversify the economy away from its dependence on oil revenues.
Although the UK and the international community are doing what we can, the onus must be, and is, on Libya’s leaders to fulfil their responsibilities, to uphold peace and security, and to find a lasting and inclusive political settlement. We engage with them regularly, encouraging them to work constructively with UN Special Representative Bathily as he seeks to facilitate a political agreement to address the underlying issues that prevent elections. The hard-working and dedicated team in our embassy in Tripoli also engage with a wide range of political actors and civil society organisations to encourage inclusive dialogue and negotiations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham reminded us about important points of history, and I am sure his book sales will do even better given the considered and important points that he made. I re-emphasise that the priority of our embassy remains building and sustaining strong and enduring partnerships in all parts of the country. The official reopening of the British embassy in 2022 was a demonstration of the strength of our relationship with the whole of Libya. The UK has played and continues to play a central role in supporting Libya on its path to becoming a more democratic and stable country. As I said to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, we are absolutely committed to continuing that task.
Daniel Kawczynski
Following our intervention in Libya, there are allegations that Haftar and his sons are committing serious human rights abuses against the people of Libya and are working with the Wagner Group. There is increasing Russian influence in eastern Libya. I very much hope that the Minister will address those points. At the very least—I have tabled written parliamentary questions on this—may we have an assurance from the British Government that sanctions will be placed on the Haftar regime if those people are proven to be carrying out abuses against their own citizens?
David Rutley
I thank my hon. Friend for those points. The UK is committed to ensuring that the Libyan sanctions regime set out in UN Security Council resolution 1970 is fit for purpose by working closely with the 1970 committee. We are negotiating UN sanctions mandate renewal, and we expect that resolution to be adopted soon. My hon. Friend makes an important point about sanctions.
Significant points were made on some of the legacy issues. WPC Fletcher’s death remains as shocking and senseless today as the day it occurred. I remember it well from the news reports at the time. It should not be forgotten.
The Lockerbie bombing was also referred to. The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 was a completely brutal act of terrorism. This year, on its 35th anniversary—I cannot believe it has been that long—we remember that tragic event and all the lives that have been blighted by its impact.
I want to highlight the importance of ensuring that we counteract the work that other countries are doing to exploit the instability in Libya to further their own malign objectives. We have heard today about the influence of Russia. Our efforts to stabilise Libya have been particularly disrupted by the Wagner Group’s illegal actions in the country. We condemn the Russian Government and the Wagner Group for those actions, which are a clear violation of international law and the UN charter, and we call for the withdrawal of all foreign fighters in the region. The UK will continue to work with international partners to strengthen Libya’s security institutions and combat extremism in the country. That includes supporting the development of national security institutions to ensure that they serve the interests of the Libyan people.
Libya has also been plagued by landmines and other explosives—the legacy of war. They not only pose a deadly risk to civilians, but hinder reconstruction and economic recovery. The UK has supported efforts to dispose of more than 6,000 mines, clear more than 400,000 square miles of minefields in the east—these are extraordinary figures—and train the first all-female de-mining team in Sirte.
As the hon. Members for Caerphilly and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) highlighted, the devastating floods have recently made a dire situation even worse. Many thousands of people have lost their lives, families have been torn apart and critical infrastructure, including hospitals and clean water supplies, has been badly damaged. The UN announced on 16 October that humanitarian assistance, provided by more than 24 humanitarian organisations, has now reached more than 146,000 people in need of support and basic services. I am pleased to see that report, because in the urgent question that some of us were involved in a few weeks ago concern was expressed about whether aid and support would reach the frontline.
The UK responded quickly with lifesaving aid. On 16 September, we announced a package worth up to £10 million to respond both to the floods in Libya and to the earthquake in Morocco. That built on the £1 million allocated in response to the floods on 13 September, and we have also committed £2 million to the UN’s flash appeal. On top of that, the UN announced $10 million from its central emergency response fund, to which the UK is one of the largest donors. UK-funded aid to Libya has provided emergency shelter to 14,000 people, 800 portable solar lanterns, and water filters and hygiene kits for 10,000 people. We have also supported the deployment of three mobile medical teams to provide primary healthcare in flood-affected areas.
We have been clear with key stakeholders in Libya that reconstruction, which was also talked about in the debate, must include institutions from both the west and the east, with full transparency and oversight of the funding by reputable international institutions. We have also allocated £6 million towards the Libya conflict, stability and security fund programme this year, which is facilitating peace-building efforts. That includes developing community-level councils, supporting civil society organisations and collaborating with Chatham House to help key Libyan institutions to become more accountable and transparent.
The UK continues to stand firm in our support for peace and stability in Libya. The UN-facilitated, Libyan-led political process offers the best hope of achieving that, alongside our wider diplomatic, humanitarian and economic development work. Members can be assured that we will do all we can to continue to help the victims of the floods and to support reconstruction, and we will continue to work closely with international partners and leaders in-country to help the people of Libya on their path towards a better and brighter future in the years ahead.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, but I echo what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) said: it is sad that there are not more Members here from both sides of the House, because Libya matters. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) for his contribution as SNP spokesperson, and of course to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who wound up the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham for his incredibly deep knowledge, based on the research for his book. We all remember him writing it; it took him two years. He must have the deepest, most profound knowledge about Libya of any Member of this House. I did not know the history of his connection with Libya through his uncle and aunt during communist times in Poland—those dark days when to see an orange was something that brought joy and hope to everybody.
I hope that Libya can be re-established sooner rather than later as a country with a functioning democracy, Government and economy, because only therein lies the hope for not just the Libyan people, but the whole region. As every Member has said this morning, Libya matters not just to Libyans, but to all of us in Europe and across the region, so we need to work doubly hard. Peter Millett and others who advised me for this debate told me that Britain, above almost every other European country, is respected widely in Libya. We need to use that connection and friendship, and the contacts that the Minister explained are already being used for the benefit of both Britain and Libya, even harder to make sure that the country is reconstructed.
The worst thing about Libya that I have discovered, over years of studying it, is that countries across Europe and the region and across the world have interfered for their own selfish reasons and agendas and have made the situation far, far worse. We need to bring those nations together and say, “Stop. It’s time you stopped and let the Libyans themselves decide what their future will be, gave them aid accordingly and helped in every way to reconstruct that country.” Only when Libya is reconstructed will it take its place once again among the nations of this world and serve its people as it truly should. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly made that point extremely strongly.
I have already thanked Peter Millett and the House of Commons Library, but I also pay tribute to the UK diplomats who are back in Tripoli once again—that is something that Peter was not able to do when he was our ambassador—for the work that they are doing. They need to be strengthened. I know that the Minister has been listening, and I know that the UK Government want to do this.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for stability in Libya.
Railway Stations in Cumbria: Staffing Changes
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered staffing of railway stations in Cumbria.
It is an absolute privilege to serve under your guidance in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. The impact of the proposed staffing changes in Cumbria, including the loss of ticket offices, will be immense and entirely negative. With the conclusion of the consultation last month, those closures may be imminent, but the Government have the power to prevent them. That is why I am so pleased and grateful to have secured this debate at this crucial time.
I have a high regard for the Minister personally, and I am here to ask him to intervene directly to save our ticket offices in Cumbria and to prevent the removal of station staff. I draw his attention to the petition to stop the closures in Cumbria, which has been signed by more than 3,000 people. I am determined that our communities should be able to access our stations and be safe at them. Those stations should have knowledgeable professionals on hand to answer the questions we all have when we are rail users, and I want to ensure that the quality of rail travel is not further diminished because of these foolish and backward-looking proposals.
In South Lakeland and Eden alone, we face the closure of Avanti’s ticket offices at the mainline west coast stations at Penrith and Oxenholme. Penrith is set to have no ticket office and to have staff available for ticketing support from 9 am, rather than from 5.30 am. At Oxenholme station, it is a similar story: the ticket office is to close and staff are set to be on hand from 8 am rather than 5.45 am. We face the removal of ticket offices and massively reduced staffing at the Northern Rail-run stations at Appleby, Windermere, Grange-over-Sands and Ulverston.
Ulverston station, where mobility scooter users and people in wheelchairs are dependent on staff to assist them across the tracks to platform 3, will be staffed for just two hours a day, from 11 am to 1 pm, and not at all on Sundays. Grange-over-Sands station, situated in a town with a disproportionately older population, will also be staffed for just two hours a day, from 11.30 am to 1.30 pm, and not at all on Sundays. Appleby station, which has direct connections to Leeds, Carlisle and the Yorkshire Dales national park, will be staffed for just four hours a day, from 9 am to 1 pm, and not at all on Sundays. Windermere station, in the heart of the Lake district—Britain’s biggest visitor destination after London—will be staffed for just three and a half hours a day, from 10 am to 1.30 pm, and, again, not at all on Sundays.
The staff who will be present for those brief periods are to be called “journey makers”, but they will not be able to sell anyone a ticket directly. They are there only to give people guidance on how to use the ticket machines on the platform, many of which do not take cash, by the way—a feature that merely adds to the heap of barriers to access that the changes entail.
For the mainline stations at Oxenholme and Penrith, the proposals mean a huge reduction in the quality and availability of support, but for the branch line stations at Appleby, Windermere, Grange-over-Sands and Ulverston, the proposals are devastating. They effectively amount to the de-staffing of those stations, to the enormous detriment of rail users and the wider community. Unstaffed stations are unsafe stations, especially for solo travellers and even more so for women.
Unstaffed stations are inaccessible stations, too. I met William in Appleby a couple of weeks ago. He is visually impaired and cannot use the ticket machine at the station. To travel, he needs a staffed ticket office. If the changes go through, he will be able to use his local station only on the rare occasions that the “journey maker” happens to be present. Last month, I met volunteers at Sight Advice South Lakes in Kendal, most of whom have visual impairments. They told me the same story as William: de-staffed stations are, for them, unusable stations.
At Grange-over-Sands, a town with a larger, older population where the station really is a lifeline for hundreds of people, the de-staffing of the station will render it inaccessible to many. Lillian and Mohammed from Levens village, who use the station regularly, tell me that because of Mohammed’s disability—he is a wheelchair user—they need a staffed station to help with such things as the ramp to get him on and off the train.
At Ulverston, people with mobility issues need to use the crossing across the tracks to get to platform 3. They can do that only when a member of staff is present, yet the plan is for that station to be staffed for just two hours a day and not at all on Sundays. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell)—my constituency neighbour—and the disability access campaigner Tony Jennings have also rightly brought the matter to the Minister’s attention.
It is my privilege to chair the public transport group Cumbria Better Connected, and in that role I joined the hon. Member, Cumbria Tourism, Cumbria local enterprise partnership, Morecambe Bay Partnership, the RMT, Ulverston business improvement district, local rail users groups and local Westmorland and Furness councillors in sending a letter to the Secretary of State this summer outlining our objections to the plans that the rail companies have put on the table. The Minister replied:
“No currently staffed station should be unstaffed as a result of industry changes, and operators should ensure that staff are well located to meet passenger needs in future. This includes ensuring that staff are available to assist those who need additional support or do not wish to use digital tickets.”
The Minister knows that the proposals to de-staff our branch line stations for at least 80% of the time are not compliant with his pledge in that letter, so he surely cannot permit the proposals to happen.
Further to that, in a debate on ticket office closures in Westminster Hall on 13 September, the Minister stated:
“I do not expect a material reduction in the number of hours where ticketing expertise is available at stations…it is important to note that the volume of hours is similar to what we currently have.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 346WH.]
But that is not the case for the proposals at Oxenholme or Penrith, and it is especially not the case at Grange, Windermere, Appleby or Ulverston. Given that all the train companies are proposing job losses—2,300 job losses in all—as a result of their ticket office closure plans nationwide, it is surely not possible for the volume of staffing hours to be even remotely similar to what we have now, and certainly the consultation does not indicate that that is the intention. Did the Minister mean what he said in this place a month ago? If so, would I be right in assuming that he plans to block the proposals, and that in fact there will not be the job losses proposed by the rail operators?
It seems obvious to me, and I assume it is obvious to the Minister, that the proposals for our stations in Cumbria completely go against his criteria. How on earth can passengers’ needs be met when Appleby station will be staffed for just four hours a day, Windermere for just three and a half hours, Ulverston and Grange stations for a mere two hours each, and none of them staffed at all on Sundays? The loss of ticket offices and our excellent ticket office staff would be a desperate step backwards, and an incredibly foolish and short-sighted one.
The train operators justify their proposals to close ticket offices and de-staff stations by saying that only 12% of passengers book their tickets directly at the ticket office. That is misleading, because it is not the case at our stations. At Appleby, for instance, 39% of all travellers book their tickets at the station office. At Grange and Ulverston stations, more tickets were bought at booking offices than through the electronic machines for every one of the last three years. Even for those who arrive at the station with a ticket, many still have questions that need answering. I am at Oxenholme nearly every week, and the excellent, cheerful ticket office staff are always being asked for advice by rail users. Most arrive with their tickets, but they perhaps lack answers to key questions about their journeys, especially when there are delays and cancellations, as is almost always the case these days.
The proposals are also stupid from a management point of view, because they are enormously demoralising to the entire rail workforce, whether staff work on platforms, in ticket offices or on trains. Have industry bosses and the Minister not noticed the ongoing industrial relations dispute? What possessed them to think that now is the right moment to cleverly pour petrol on that fire by seeking to force through unnecessary changes that damage the industry and morale?
The impact on our economy will be significant, too. In Cumbria, we have 20 million visitors a year. As I have been collecting signatures for our petition to save the ticket offices, I have been talking to passengers at Oxenholme, Appleby, Grange-over-Sands and Windermere. One thing that struck me is that many of those who were keen to sign were tourists. Indeed, at Windermere, the very first four signatories were from Israel, Abu Dhabi, Switzerland and Pakistan. By the way, they all already had their ticket. They were all uncertain about connections, timings and delays and would all be left high and dry if Ministers permit the closures.
Our tourism economy employs 60,000 people in Cumbria. It is our biggest employer by far, generating £3.5 billion a year for our economy. It is unacceptable that our visitors should have their experience so badly damaged by the proposed decisions. Westmorland and Furness Council and the Lake District national park authority are striving to get visitors to come to the lakes but leave their cars at home to protect our world-class landscapes from pollution and congestion. It is not right that that vital work should be undone by a proposal that would downgrade the main railway station in the English Lake district. By the way, many of those who arrive in the lakes as tourists are international visitors who come to the UK via Manchester airport, where TransPennine Express is planning to halve the opening hours of the railway station ticket office. That is a cut in Manchester that would do damage to the economy of the lakes.
The closure of ticket offices at the mainline stations is equally a backward step. At Oxenholme and Penrith stations, staff will not be available for ticket sales or advice until after the first several trains of the day have been and gone. How can that be an improvement in service? The loss of the physical ticket offices is also a foolish thing. Having staff at a designated ticket office means that passengers always know precisely where they can find help and advice, rather than having to scour the platform to see whether they can find a shivering employee randomly stood in an unspecified location. Furthermore, has it occurred to the Minister that the screens in the ticket offices can play an important role? Sadly, staff sometimes find themselves on their own, confronted by agitated and occasionally potentially violent people. It is not right to force them to lose that important shield.
The Beeching cuts of the 1960s were a tragic, myopic error on a huge scale, causing lasting and largely irreparable damage to our transport infrastructure, our environment and our communities. The minds behind that colossal own goal concluded that the arrival of the shiny new motorways and mass private car ownership rendered many of our railways redundant; they were yesterday’s news or old hat. Yet, looking back, few decisions can count as being as destructive or as stupid as the Beeching cuts.
What lesson do we learn from that devastating mistake? It is surely this: that we must not be hasty to throw away the old just because something new has come along. Then, the old was the railways, and the new was the motorways. Today, the old is human beings and human interactions, and the new is technology that allows us to book tickets and manage our journeys online. The new technology is good and most of us use it, but to arrogantly assume that we are on the right side of history if we blot out the human infrastructure of our railways is to invite the same ridicule and derision in future that most of us feel today towards Beeching and the politicians who foolishly followed his recommendations.
In the debate in this Chamber on 13 September, the Minister said:
“I have no role in the consultation at this stage”.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 13 September 2023; Vol 737, c. 346WH.]
Throughout the process, the Government have tried to maintain that it is industry-led. But that is not really true, is it? Documents released via a freedom of information request confirm not only that the Government had to sign off each company’s proposal before it went for public consultation, but that they were advising the train companies what to do with their closed ticket offices afterwards and were encouraging them to consider renting them out for retail use—and all of that was before the public consultations were even launched.
The proposals to de-staff our stations and damage our railways are not some regrettable imposition by an alien force beyond the Minister’s control. They are proposals from rail operators who are answerable to him and the Secretary of State—proposals that he has the power to quash. If he thinks these damaging proposals are a good thing for Cumbria, the Conservatives must stand behind them and accept responsibility. If they think they are a bad thing, what is the point of them being in office if they will not do the right thing and stop them? If the Minister wanted to call a halt to this process, he could. If he wanted to and if the Prime Minister wanted to, he could save our ticket offices with the stroke of a pen. On behalf of the people of Cumbria, our excellent station staff and our millions of visitors, I call on him to do just that.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this important debate on staffing changes and ticket offices in his constituency. I know from a chance meeting with him in his constituency that he works hard for his constituents. I was walking in the Lake district and stumbled across a “Meet your MP” sign—and there he was, so we turned it into “Meet your MP and someone else’s MP.” I thank him for his kind words at the opening of the debate.
Together with the rail industry, we want to improve and modernise the experience for passengers by moving staff out from behind the ticket office screens to provide more help and advice in customer-focused roles. There are currently about 980 Department for Transport-regulated ticket offices for stations managed by the Department for Transport-contracted operators; 43% of them currently do not have any ticket office facility. People are still able to use those stations to access trains.
There has been a huge shift in the way passengers purchase tickets at railway stations: about one in every 10 transactions in 2022-23 took place in a ticket office, down from about one in three 10 years ago. Despite that, our stations have hardly changed in the past 10 years, which means that staff are constrained to work in ticket offices although they could serve passengers better on station platforms and concourses, where all the passengers could be served.
I am pleased that the rail industry launched consultations on the future of ticket offices under the ticketing and settlement agreement process, which gave the public and stakeholders an opportunity to scrutinise the train operating companies’ proposals to ensure that they work in the best possible way for passengers. The consultations, which ended on 1 September, yielded more than 680,000 responses. We are now in a period in which the independent passenger bodies, which comprise Transport Focus and London TravelWatch, are engaging with the train operators on the basis of the consultation responses that they have received and the criteria that they have set out.
I expect train operators to work collaboratively with the passenger bodies in the remaining weeks, to respond to the concerns raised and to define their proposals accordingly. Where agreement cannot be reached between the operators and the passenger bodies, individual cases may be referred to the Secretary of State for Transport for a decision. At that point, he will look to the Secretary of State’s ticketing and settlement agreement ticket office guidance. The TSA guidance is clear that a wide range of factors should be considered, including the impact of proposals on customer support, security at stations, modernised retail practices such as the availability of pay-as-you-go ticketing, and support for passengers with disabilities, accessibility or other equalities-related needs.
It remains important that we reform the railway to enable staff to provide a more flexible, agile and personal service, creating the modern experience that people expect. We should also look for ways to ensure value for money for the UK taxpayer. I know from listening to constituents and parliamentarians that there is indeed interest in what will happen to ticket office staff, should there be any changes. Indeed, as part of my visit across the railway over the summer, I visited Appleby station in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, as he said.
The changes are about modernising the passenger experience by moving expert ticket office staff to be more visible and accessible around the station. As only 10% of tickets are sold across the ticket office counter, that means that most passengers are not in contact with ticket office staff. The idea is to take the member of staff on to the platform or concourse to help the passengers where they need it. That includes purchasing tickets via a ticket machine or online.
As the hon. Member mentioned, I reiterated at the last Westminster Hall debate, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), that—crucially—the Secretary of State and I have been clear that our expectation is that no currently staffed stations will be unstaffed as a result of the reform, with staff still there to provide assistance and additional support for those who need and want it. That includes advice on tickets and assistance in buying them. I also reiterated that I do not expect a material reduction in the number of hours where ticketing expertise is available at stations in the manner that some have described and that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale set out for the stations in his own constituency. I expect that by the end of the consultation process, there will be a differing design. When we talk about redeployment, it is important to note that the volume of hours should be similar to what we currently have. He will no doubt make note of those words.
Should ticket offices close following the process, we would expect staff to be redeployed and multi-skilled to provide advice and assistance across stations. Exact arrangements will vary operator by operator and will be the subject of collective bargaining with the trade unions. It is vital that our railway is accessible to all, and I have engaged directly with accessibility groups and will continue to do so. Alongside that, train operators are required to take into account the adequacy of the proposed alternatives in relation to the needs of passengers who are disabled, and to include that in the notice of the proposals sent to other operators and passenger groups. Operators had prepared equality impact assessments, and they were available on their websites during the consultation.
The Office of Rail and Road’s latest annual consumer report highlights that Passenger Assist booking has significantly increased since last year and that disabled people have returned to the railway largely in line with overall trends. For that reason, I firmly believe that the proposal to bring staff out from behind glass screens, to help the increased number of people who need assistance from the platform on to trains, is a step in the right direction in terms of the multi-skilling roles that I have described.
I reiterate that by bringing station staff out from behind the ticket office screen, we envisage an improved and modernised experience for passengers using the railways. It is vital that we bring forward reforms through considering changes in passenger behaviour, involving technologies and ensuring value for money for the taxpayer, while ensuring that assistance and support continue for those who require it most. I look forward to the process continuing in the design stage that I have described.
Question put and agreed to.
Green Energy: Ports
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered ports and green energy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins—for the first time, I believe. I look forward to the next 90 minutes. I almost thought I saw the Minister cursing under his breath as he sat down for yet another debate; I keep dragging him back here to talk about issues that are close to my heart and to the interests of my constituency in Pembrokeshire. I am grateful to have secured time for this debate.
This is an important topic, for a couple of reasons. First, quite simply, without a thriving port sector attracting the necessary new infrastructure investment, I do not believe that we will be able to meet the ambitious targets that we have set to protect our energy security and renew our energy system as we work towards net zero. Secondly, a new generation of investment in our ports, based around a long-term vision for renewable energy, has the potential to make a significant contribution to addressing some of the economic inequalities and deprivation that we see in too many of our port communities.
I believe that ports can be an engine for local economic renewal and the key to a new energy future for the whole United Kingdom. That is the essential message that I hope to convey in my short remarks this afternoon. The key question I want to pose is this: what are the steps, decisions and interventions that His Majesty’s Government can take to support and shape this new future for our ports, while recognising that it is the private sector investors and developers who will ultimately need to make that vision a reality?
Nowhere is that more clearly in focus than in my constituency of Preseli Pembrokeshire. The port of Milford Haven is the UK’s most important energy port, hosting major oil refining and petroleum import and export terminals, two liquefied natural gas import and regasification terminals, and one of the UK’s largest and most efficient gas-fired power stations. The port looks forward to a future in which offshore wind and hydrogen will play a central role as our energy system changes. I will make some specific remarks later about the situation at Milford Haven in the context of its relationship with Port Talbot; together, those two south Wales ports form the Celtic Freeport enterprise. I am sure that the points I make will come as no surprise to the Minister, because he has been generous in giving me lots of time over the past year or two to talk about the vision that is emerging there. He has been extremely helpful in his work to take that forward.
As we are an island nation, it seems almost trite and blindingly obvious to say that ports are an essential part of our economy as gateways for vital imports and valuable exports. However, I do not think that that point is appreciated enough, partly because while some ports have flourished in recent times, others have not. In too many of our port communities, there is a sense that they are no longer quite as central to our economic life as they once were when the structure of the UK economy looked very different. Many ports have seen a steep decline in trade and industrial activity without seeing new industries and sectors emerging to fully plug the gap.
I believe that the green energy revolution offers a turning point for many of our ports. There is a broad consensus shared across the Government, the Opposition and large swathes of industry about the increasing importance of renewable energy in our energy mix and about the need for less reliance on imported hydrocarbons. With the impact of climate change brought increasingly into focus following the supply and price impacts of the war in Ukraine, we can see the net zero and energy security agendas coming together in a very potent way. The need to deliver home-grown, affordable and sustainable energy has never been greater. Our ports are right at the heart of meeting that challenge.
It is worth saying that Britain does not exist in isolation when it comes to this agenda. Across Europe, North America and indeed the whole world, many other countries are looking at this—just look at the efforts being made by major ports across Europe to get ready by upgrading their infrastructure to enable a big increase in renewable energy. We can see that at Bilbao, Brest, Rotterdam and other locations across Europe. We are in an internationally competitive environment. One point that I want to leave with the Minister today is that, for all the ambition we have and the vision that we have set out and are pursuing, we need to recognise that others are doing so as well. Given the competition for investment and capital, often from large global companies, we need to be getting our skates on and making good progress.
Ports have a major role to play in delivering on the renewable energy vision, and not just as transit points or entry and exit points for materials; they also have the potential to be hubs for manufacturing, energy generation, operations, maintenance and servicing. Just as in another era our ports acted as cradles of the industrial revolution, I think they can be cradles of a new green industrial revolution, based on the vision that I have been outlining.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate, to which I have come purely so that I can hijack it by singing the virtues of Shoreham harbour, the closest cross-channel harbour to London. He mentioned green hubs, and I absolutely agree with his comments about flexibility and the renaissance in our ports.
Shoreham harbour has put solar panels on its sheds. It has wind turbines. It helps to service the Rampion wind farm just offshore, which will expand to power more than 1.2 million homes across Sussex. It is becoming a hydrogen hub, working with Ricardo engineering, which retrofits engines to be run on hydrogen. Shoreham wants to produce its own hydrogen as well as importing it, and it will be an important centre for net zero through the Sussex bay kelp project, where carbon capture by seaweed is even greater than by trees. Is Shoreham not a great example of flexibility, adaptability and the huge potential of the green revolution, which can also apply to the whole United Kingdom?
Stephen Crabb
I am grateful for the very concise way in which my hon. Friend has sung the virtues of his local port. He draws attention to an extremely important point. Very rarely are we talking about individual technologies in isolation; often they come together as a mix. There are so many synergies from different companies working together, as we can see at so many ports around the United Kingdom. It is really encouraging to see so many colleagues in the Chamber from so many different parts of the United Kingdom, hopefully looking to share in the vision that we are talking about.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
On the subject of ports, I should not let the moment pass without mentioning Peterhead and the nearby St Fergus gas terminal. As my right hon. Friend will know, it is the site of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, which, when completed, will have import capability that perhaps exporters of carbon dioxide from his constituency will take advantage of.
Stephen Crabb
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Banff and Buchan is a constituency with which I am very familiar, as he knows, and there are some exciting things happening. For a long time the north-east of Scotland was associated with fishing and oil, but there is a lot more to talk about now, so I look forward to hearing further contributions from him this afternoon.
To encourage the investment required for all the ports that we have an interest in and are talking about this afternoon, the targets that the Government are setting are really important because they set the level of ambition and send a signal to investors in the marketplace about what the Government want.
There are two documents that are particularly important in describing the opportunities flowing from the new energy environment that we are in. One is the energy security strategy published in April last year; the other, which was published in March this year, is “Powering Up Britain”, which speaks to the role of new renewable technologies in our energy mix and outlines the scale of the ambition. Because of my local port and our proximity to the Celtic sea, I have a particular interest in the Government’s ambitions for floating offshore wind. In those two Government documents, I believe there lies a major new industrial opportunity for our nation.
The targets that have been set include 5 GW of floating offshore wind, 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity, up to 70 GW of new solar, and an ambition for between 20 million and 30 million tonnes per annum of carbon storage. That is an exciting and ambitious set of targets that the Government are setting out. Meeting them will require a lot of work and a lot of investment, and ports will be right at the centre of it.
Different ports will undoubtedly offer different capabilities according to size, location, local skills mix and local supply chains. It is too easy to say that there will be something for everyone, but if the floating offshore wind sector in the Celtic sea plays anything like the role that the Government are setting out for it in “Powering Up Britain”, it will generate new activity in multiple port locations across south Wales and south-west England.
But let us not get ahead of ourselves. The truth is that we still do not have any floating offshore wind projects up and running in the Celtic sea. That leads me on to the final section of my speech, in which I will outline the significance of what we have in my constituency at Milford Haven, as well as summarising the key asks that I want to put to the Government.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I feel this is an appropriate juncture to intervene. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of Felixstowe port in Suffolk, which has almost 50% of the UK’s container trade. Through strategic investment, there is a great opportunity for the Government not only to support the economic growth of ports, but to support them in delivering the decarbonising agenda. In the case of Felixstowe, investment in the Ely junction will make a significant difference by potentially improving freight rail capacity to the port. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to recommit today to the Government securing timely funding for upgrading that junction and others in the east of England? That will allow improved freight transport to Felixstowe, will help to decarbonise the transport of goods to the port and will improve its economic capacity.
Stephen Crabb
I am grateful for that intervention. I am not familiar with the specifics of what my hon. Friend is talking about, but as I am generally in favour of upgrading junctions, I will echo his call to the Minister to support the investment required. His point about decarbonisation is really important; I might say a few words myself about decarbonisation in the context of the local energy industry in Milford Haven.
In the port of Milford Haven, we have the UK’s single largest cluster of energy-related businesses, with high-capacity oil and gas pipelines, electricity connections and a wide range of conventional oil and gas companies, as I referred to earlier. The energy sector in Pembrokeshire supports the employment of 5,000 skilled workers across Wales and the employment of many hundreds more throughout the wider supply chain.
Last week, alongside representatives of many companies at the port, I had the pleasure of celebrating the delivery of the 1,000th cargo of liquefied natural gas at the South Hook LNG terminal. This afternoon we are talking about the green energy revolution, but the truth—this is a point that the Minister understands very well—is that we will rely on oil and gas for decades to come, and the terminals in my constituency that have done a lot of the heavy lifting in the last couple of years in enhancing UK energy security will be as vital as ever. Those conventional energy companies are themselves taking huge strides and making big investments to decarbonise, reduce their own carbon footprint and fit in with the framework of policy and ambition that the Government have set out.
I commend those companies—South Hook LNG, Dragon LNG, the Valero oil refinery, the Puma oil import terminal—which are all part of a cluster around the Milford Haven waterway that is sharing best practice and working together. They are part of the wider south Wales industrial cluster, which has been charged by the Government with the mission of leading decarbonisation efforts. I look forward to hearing the remarks of my friend the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). The south Wales corridor—from Milford Haven in the west with its big hydrocarbon plants, through to Port Talbot with the enormous Tata steelworks, and then to Newport and the border of England at Gwent—accounts for a major chunk of Wales’s overall carbon emissions, so the south Wales industrial cluster’s efforts to decarbonise are vital. The Government support them, but it would be good for Ministers to engage even more with the cluster and particularly, from my point of view, with the energy cluster in Pembrokeshire.
In October last year, I led a debate in Westminster Hall about floating offshore wind. I will not repeat everything I said about the new industrial opportunity for Wales and south-west England that lies in the Celtic sea, but I underline the point that this is not some piece of green idealism. The Government’s targets for reaching net zero and ensuring a greater degree of energy security require industrial development in the Celtic sea on a very large scale. Milford Haven is in an ideal geographic location for the Celtic sea developments.
Milford Haven also has more than 50 years of energy industry skills and heritage. Many companies in the local supply chain are well able to adapt and are excited about the potential new opportunities from floating offshore wind. More than 20 companies have expressed an interest as potential developers in floating offshore wind projects in the Celtic sea, including large companies such as RWE and Equinor, which have global footprints and are already investing in Pembrokeshire ahead of the opening up of the Celtic sea. Other companies such as Floventis are already working with local schools and colleges to look at what kind of skills will be required and to excite young people about the green energy revolution. We will need many more people going into technical trades—more welders, pipe fitters, marine engineers, navigators and people who can work offshore—as well as project planners and all the other highly skilled jobs that are required to deliver such projects. It is an exciting time down in Milford Haven.
Let me wrap up by summarising a few asks of the Government. The first—the Minister has heard me ask this before, but I will ask it again—is that it would be great if he could visit Milford Haven, sit down with some of the companies that I am talking about, and get a sense of the excitement and the work that is happening. The previous Secretary of State made a fleeting visit in the middle of August to RWE’s net zero centre at its power station in Pembroke, but we need the Minister to engage with the whole sector. He has previously committed to coming down. Transport to west Wales is appalling—the Welsh Government need to pull their finger out when it comes to running train services, but that is a debate for another day—so it is difficult to get to. There are so many good Scottish colleagues present, so I will make the point that, given the number of visits that Scottish constituencies get, it would be great if Wales could have some of that as well. That is my first ask: come to Pembrokeshire and see what is happening.
Secondly, the bidding process for the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme closed recently. I have written to the Secretary of State, copying in the Treasury. I strongly support Milford Haven’s application for FLOWMIS funding. I have made this point previously, and I will make it again this afternoon: if this fund is to help unlock strategic investment in port infrastructure, it has to be used in a targeted way. I love levelling-up funds—I love the way they are used and spread around—but this is not a levelling-up fund. It has to be used to encourage private developers to release their funding, to incentivise and to send a market signal. I encourage the use of that money. There is £160 million. It should be more, and hopefully it could be more. I would like to see Milford Haven and the port of Port Talbot in south Wales get their asks. Investment is needed in both locations. Everyone who is considering the industry of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea will agree that Milford Haven and Port Talbot are the two western-facing ports in the Celtic sea where this will happen first.
Thirdly, we appreciate the support that the UK Government have given to establishing the Celtic freeport. I am delighted that Milford Haven, and Port Talbot 70 miles away, have a twinned arrangement and are partners in the Celtic freeport enterprise. A lot of work remains to be done on the governance and on getting the freeport up and running and doing its thing. I ask the Minister to show a real interest in that and to meet representatives of the Celtic freeport to capture their vision of how they want to use that to incentivise investment, particularly in supply chains, so that floating offshore wind does not happen in the same way as fixed-bottom offshore wind, where we ended up relying on companies based and doing work overseas. We want much more of the work for this new industry to be based in and close to our constituencies in south Wales.
My fourth ask of the Minister is on working with the Crown Estate, which I know he already does. If the Minister looks at what the Crown Estate has said ahead of its next leasing round, he will see that it is emphasising the importance of developers working with what they describe as integration ports. These are the ports where the kit is going to be assembled, and these are enormous pieces of kit. I take my hat off to Dan Labbad and his team, who are doing a very good job, but it is important that the plan that the Crown Estate is working on aligns with what the UK Government are doing. That aligned leadership is going to be important if we are going to make those strides and get the industry off the ground.
I was going to make a final point about contracts for difference, but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be leading an excellent Westminster Hall debate on that subject tomorrow afternoon, so I will let him make those points. I am sure that he and I think the same about the issue.
I will leave it there. I look forward to hearing from other Members.
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that I am planning to start Front-Bench speeches at around 3.28 pm.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing this vital debate. It has been a real pleasure working with him cross-party in the interests of our two communities, and communities right across the south Wales corridor and the whole of Wales and the United Kingdom. What we are discussing today genuinely has UK-wide significance. We worked together to develop and deliver the successful Celtic freeport bid, and I look forward to further collaborating on maximising the benefits it will bring.
Britain’s ports are both the gateways and the drivers of so much economic activity in the UK and, in turn, are crucial to the prosperity of British people and their families. From the food shipped into Britain’s supermarket shelves to the exporting of British goods sold overseas, our ports play a crucial role both in the everyday lives of families across the UK and in the growth and success of hundreds of thousands of British businesses. As well as adding close to £7 billion to the UK economy, ports employ more than 100,000 people directly, and more than that again in their supply chains, meaning that they are pivotal to supporting local economies and providing communities with good job opportunities. British ports transport around 60 million international and domestic tourists in and out of the country every year.
Today I want to focus on the once-in-a-generation opportunity represented by the new industry of floating offshore wind and the crucial role that the ports will play. The Celtic sea and Wales’s geography offer us a significant competitive advantage that we cannot afford to squander. We must seize this opportunity to place ourselves at the forefront of the green industrial revolution, just as Wales was the cradle of the first industrial revolution two centuries ago. Floating offshore wind has the potential to deliver 16,000 new jobs and could land £1.7 billion of investment in port infrastructure and manufacturing in south Wales. FLOW offers the opportunity to unlock a truly game-changing £54 billion of investment into the UK economy, with the Crown Estate aiming for approximately 25 GW by 2045. Indeed, the first 1 GW of projects alone is anticipated to create 5,000 jobs.
Our Port Talbot port has both the space and the steel to manufacture these giant structures, while Milford Haven, as the right hon. Member has pointed out, can provide energy storage facilities and a whole range of other vital components for this huge opportunity. This is a global market and we are in a global race for green investment. Port infrastructure needs to be ready ahead of time to capture first-mover advantage for Wales, so that we can land investment in port infrastructure and manufacturing to generate good job opportunities and deliver energy security. Without the first-mover advantage, Wales and the UK risk repeating the experience of earlier waves of offshore and onshore wind development, where the jobs and investment ended up going to other countries.
So what do we need to do to seize these opportunities? First, we need to make sure that the port infrastructure is built. The port and the prospective developers need certainty. They need assurances that the market will reach its full 24 GW capacity. Of course, the first round of FLOW, as confirmed by the Crown Estate, is only set at 4.5 GW, but it is the long-term line of sight on this and the pipeline that we really need to focus on. Associated British Ports is developing its plans for Port Talbot at pace, investing more than £500 million in developing a major floating offshore wind integration assembly port and a wider green energy hub. But the length of the leasing window by the Crown Estate is of crucial importance. We need a clear outline of the development window to that 24 GW target for flow in the Celtic sea. This is to act as a clear signal in that FLOW global market. Could I ask the Minister to outline the steps he is taking to secure clarity about the long-term pipeline?
Secondly, Wales must get its fair share of the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme programme. There is a pot totalling £160 million for the whole of the UK. Welsh ports must get their fair share of that pot. It is critical that the UK Government understand the enormous potential for Welsh ports to deliver this game-changing new industry. We need the UK Government to back the two very strong bids from Port Talbot and Milford Haven for FLOWMIS funding. Could the Minister update us on FLOWMIS and assure us that Wales will get its fair share?
Thirdly, Aberavon in Wales will secure maximum benefit from floating offshore wind only if the developers are held to firm supply chain commitments. The Crown Estate must get this right when awarding licences. We must ensure that local supply chains are developed for the manufacture of turbines and their sub-structures as well as their operation and maintenance. We cannot have a situation, for example, where these structures are built in China or somewhere else and merely assembled and serviced at Welsh ports. That is the case with the Scottish SSE wind farms, for example, which use no British steel whatever. We must use local steel. Tata Steel can adapt and reconfigure its production processes if it knows what the order book looks like, but it needs that advance warning. Could I ask the Minister to tell us what steps he is taking to secure those supply chain commitments right from the outset of the Crown Estate licensing process?
Stephen Kinnock
Thank you, Mrs Cummins. I will try to pick up where I left off.
On the planning side, the Government need to find a solution to the national grid’s capacity issues. The National Grid says it has to develop up to five times as much energy infrastructure over the next seven years as it has developed over the past 30 years, such is the clamour for net zero projects, in terms of both energy generation and demand. How will the UK Government and, more specifically, the Minister work with the National Grid to end the gridlock, and how will they send a clear message to developers that these problems are going to be fixed?
That brings me to my next point, which is about the administrative strike price. Allocation round 5 was a shambles, with no bidders for offshore wind. We need the UK Government urgently to reshape the contracts for difference for AR6 and make them more attractive to developers if we are to realise Britain’s potential to become a world leader on FLOW.
Finally, the UK and Welsh Governments must work collaboratively. We cannot allow bureaucracy to slow us down. Planning and consenting for major infrastructure is devolved. We need the UK Government to look for ways to support the Welsh Government to ensure that current capacity and resource blockages for planning and consenting are resolved to ensure that the seabed licensing is accelerated and that port infrastructure in Wales is ready in time. We also need strong cross-Whitehall co-ordination. I worry that the large number of Government Departments involved means that the process is not as streamlined as it should be. Perhaps the Minister could say what he will do to knock heads together to unlock all of the blockages.
This is a huge, game-changing opportunity for Aberavon, Wales and the entire United Kingdom. Ports play an absolutely crucial role in this opportunity. I look forward to the Minister’s comments so that we can find a pathway towards maximising the opportunities before us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I gently ask Members to make contributions of about four minutes so that we can get everybody in?
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I apologise that I will have to leave before the end of the debate for a meeting at 4 o’clock.
I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this debate. I agreed with everything he said and noted his slight jealousy of how Scottish Conservative MPs are so good at cheering Ministers who come up to our constituencies. He also mentioned how bad the transport is in Labour-run Wales. It is also pretty bad in SNP-run Scotland, particularly if you are trying to get a ferry—but I digress. [Interruption.] Well, it’s true.
I want to focus for a few minutes on the issues in my constituency of Moray. Buckie’s proud history as a fishing harbour dates back many years, to 1878. It was the first large concrete harbour to be built in Scotland. We have seen a decline in fishing in Scotland over a number of years, so I was delighted when Buckie was chosen as the site for the operations and maintenance of the new Moray West offshore wind farm. That will bring 60 highly skilled jobs to the community of Buckie. I discussed this with the developer, Ocean Winds, and the local community at the opening event. This is not just about the jobs that are coming, important though they are; there will also be a long-term effect. The jobs will be there for the next three or four decades, so this vital work is coming to communities whose ports have experienced a downturn. It is long-term and highly skilled work.
Immediately before this debate, I met David Whitehouse from Offshore Energies UK. He has been doing a lot of work with oil and gas, but also with renewables and green energy. He was keen to speak about the opportunities available to ports across Scotland and the United Kingdom, and about the UK Government’s support to ensure that the infrastructure is there and is capable of taking us on to the next level.
The final area I want to look at is freeports in Scotland. I was delighted that one of the first announcements that the Prime Minister made after taking office was to deliver the two freeports in Scotland in conjunction with the Scottish Government. Our two Governments are working together to deliver freeports. I spoke to Calum MacPherson, the new chief executive officer of the Inverness and Cromarty freeport, which will have benefits for my Moray constituency and constituencies across the highlands. It is not just great news that we have a freeport there; it is levelling up in action, because that area has seen a decline in the working-age population. People will move to Cromarty and the area to support the tens of thousands of jobs that could be created as a result of the freeport.
The quayside depths provide Cromarty with an extremely exciting opportunity to be a real hub for the offshore renewable industry. Not only is it great that freeport status has come to both the highlands and the firth of Forth, but the jobs, investment and building up of the local community are being roundly welcomed by the vast majority of people. Sadly, some Scottish Government representatives are still against freeports, but I think the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland, particularly in the areas with freeport status, can see the benefits.
Work is being done to ensure that Scotland and its coast, and my Moray constituency, have the opportunity to be involved in the next stage of the offshore industry. Oil and gas is still an important industry in Scotland: 90,000 jobs rely on it. There is a strong future for it, as we have seen in polling this week. There are also opportunities in green renewables. I am delighted that the UK Government support that, and I am firmly behind them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for bringing the issue to Westminster Hall today. He has done so before. I have been here to support him in the past, and I do so again today with the same motive: I have always believed in net zero and green energy. Some people in my party perhaps may not have the same enthusiasm for it, but that is not the point; the point is that our party is committed to it, and we want Northern Ireland to contribute to net zero goals.
Hon. Members will be aware, from their constituencies, of the expansion of green ports across the UK. I for one want to ensure that Northern Ireland and my constituency of Strangford take part in this expansion, so it is good to participate in the debate. We all want to play a part in helping our society to turn greener. Northern Ireland has five ports, four of which are public trust ports; they are in Belfast, Londonderry, Warrenpoint and Coleraine. The fifth is Larne, which is privately owned by P&O. Northern Ireland also has three fishing ports: Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie, which lies on the Ards peninsula in my constituency of Strangford. While the right hon. Gentleman may not have had the Minister visit his constituency, I am pleased to say that he has visited Portaferry. He has been to Scotland and Northern Ireland, so I am sure he will eventually get to Wales.
The seaports are managed by the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. I have worked closely with local fishermen in my constituency for years. Fishing is such an important industry for Northern Ireland, and across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is certainly scope to ensure that our local ports and harbours have the opportunity to become greener and more environmentally friendly. I welcome that and encourage everyone to support that, but the incentives need to be there to make that happen. The International Maritime Organisation has set the target of halving 2008 emissions by 2050—quite a big goal, but if we put our mind to it we can achieve it.
The strategy to reduce emissions is to increase electrification of ports and port handling processes, and to adopt future fuels such as liquified natural gas, hydrogen or ammonia. Globally, we need to come together as one to decarbonise shipping and ports, thus ensuring our target for net maritime CO2 reduction is met. Everyone here knows where I stand: I am a great believer in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), we are always better together. We can do this better together, and I do not see any reason why it cannot happen.
Shell is developing a hydrogen hub through the port of Rotterdam and the Hollandse Kust wind farm, which aims to start production in 2023, so there are examples in other parts of Europe that we could replicate. The wind farm is expected to produce some 60,000 kg of hydrogen daily, which will fuel 2,300 hydrogen-powered goods vehicles per day. That is a scheme that could really work. I know the Minister has always been keen to tell us what the United Kingdom is doing, and we will hear some of that later on. Closer to home, the port of Aberdeen in Scotland has also taken action.
There is a great necessity for a solid and flexible energy system that complements local production of green energy with the import of renewable molecules. If port and harbour masters are to consider the benefits of a green future, Government incentives must be there. I ask the Minister whether the incentives to make that happen can be put in place.
We are a maritime nation. The United Kingdom’s ports can be the basis for a new, low-carbon economic model and can help to address the long-standing regional imbalances that have come to characterise the British economy. This United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should pave the way, and the devolved Administrations should not be left behind. Associated British Ports is committed to investing in green energy infrastructure, and the services needed to deliver a clean energy transition and create lasting prosperity for our coastal communities. We need greater integration between this place and the Department for the Economy back home in Northern Ireland, through the Minister’s participation and encouragement. I encourage the Minister to ensure that we in Northern Ireland become part of this project.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I do not intend to keep hon. Members too long. In fact, I think my speech will be shorter than the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing the debate and giving me the opportunity to talk about the port of Southampton.
Associated British Ports runs the port of Southampton and is committed to decarbonisation. All ABP vehicles in the port are electric, and it has free chargers for all visitors and employees in the port. Last year, ABP commissioned its first shore power plug-in. Some 80% of cruise ships are capable of taking plug-ins, but there are very few of them in this country. In fact, ABP in Southampton had the first commercial plug-in in the UK. It would like a second one, but the national grid does not have the capacity. The new cruise terminal that it commissioned the year before last, the Horizon cruise terminal, which was opened by the then Minister for marine and maritime, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), is the greenest port terminal in the country. It has 2,000 solar panels on the roof and creates more energy than it uses every day. Elsewhere in the port, DP World operates the container facilities; it has decarbonised its vehicles and straddle cranes by using hydro-treated vegetable oil to replace diesel and has cut the terminal’s emissions by some 80%.
Beyond the boundaries of the port, the Solent cluster is working to decarbonise energy. The cluster is the only decarbonisation option in the south of England. It is led by ExxonMobil, ABP, the Solent local enterprise partnership and the University of Southampton, and it has over 50 partners. ExxonMobil’s plans are to create hydrogen manufacturing, which will be able to supply industrial quantities of hydrogen by 2030 while capturing the carbon that the manufacturing process creates. It will be able to capture not only its own carbon, but carbon from other industries in the area.
The private sector is creating the solutions that we have asked it to create, but too often obstacles and difficulties hinder its progress. Too often, companies come to me and say that they would like to do more, but that the Government, the grid or someone is getting in the way of their progress. That is why I wanted to come today and make a few short points to the Minister. Just as there is uncertainty to do with the national grid, there is uncertainty to do with licences for storing carbon under the sea. Those uncertainties are slowing down progress. My plea to the Minister and the Government is that, where we can, we remove any obstacles, do not create any more difficulties, and give those who will create our solutions—the private sector—any support that the Government can give.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this important debate.
There is no doubt that the port sector has a leading role to play in our energy transition. I am fortunate to have in my constituency on the Humber the ports of Immingham, Grimsby, Hull and Goole, which are all owned and operated by Associated British Ports. We are, indeed, the energy estuary. ABP is committed to green energy and to meeting our net zero ambitions. The port of Immingham is the largest port by tonnage, handling around 46 million tonnes of cargo each year. It represents a gateway to global trade and is a critical part of the supply chain for sustainable electricity generation and other production that helps to power the nation.
Linked to ports are, of course, freeports, which also have a huge role to play in the energy transition. We are fortunate in the region to have the Humber freeport, which is determined to accelerate the region as a world-leading hub for renewable energy and clean growth. The Humber freeport incorporates three tech sites that will allow for the rapid development of new offshore wind manufacturing, which will make the site a leading UK producer of wind turbines. Given that the port of Grimsby, part of which is in my constituency, is the largest hub for offshore wind operations in the world—there is significant growth still to come—the Humber is ideally located to take advantage of the growing demand for wind energy in the North sea. The Humber ports are home to world-leading facilities such as Ørsted, the Siemens blade factory and the offshore renewable energy catapult operations maintenance bases in Grimsby. This is opportune, given that offshore wind is set to grow at pace over the next decade, with 40 GW of clean electricity planned by 2030. The Humber can act as a model not only for the UK, but for Europe and the wider world.
ABP has also partnered with Harbour Energy to develop a carbon dioxide import terminal in Immingham. That terminal will provide a large-scale facility to connect CO2 emissions from industrial businesses around the UK to Viking CCS’s CO2 storage sites in the southern North sea. The project includes Phillips 66, VPI and West Burton Energy. Together, they aim to capture 10 million tonnes of UK emissions per annum by 2030. That is vital work in the UK region that has the greatest CO2 emissions by a considerable margin. Fortunately, local industry agrees that that record is not acceptable and must change, which presents a monumental opportunity. My constituency will hopefully become home to the Immingham green energy terminal, which will be on the eastern side of the port of Immingham. That is to be constructed and maintained by ABP, and will be home to Air Products’ new hydrogen production facility.
The terminal will include a new jetty with up to two berths and associated infrastructure, to be used for the import and export of bulk liquids. It represents a nationally significant infrastructure project and therefore requires a development consent order from the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will feed back positively on this project to his Department, given that the terminal will contribute to the Humber 2030 vision; the Humber Energy Board is driving forward change in local industries in order to decarbonise the Humber and deliver clean energy for the future.
The Minister will be aware of the CATCH training facility based at Stallingborough on the south bank of the Humber, which is being developed as a national net zero training centre. The significance of recent and planned investment in decarbonisation projects in the Humber cannot be overestimated. Offshore wind, hydrogen energy, carbon capture—the Humber ports have it all. We are proud to be the UK’s energy estuary, and I am determined for us to maximise the opportunities that arise from the net zero transition, creating highly skilled jobs and driving investment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said, we are in a worldwide field. We need certainty and speedy decisions from the Department; I am sure that the Minister will confirm that that is what we will get.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this debate. He is right to highlight the opportunities in the Celtic sea. I shall briefly provide some geographical balance and complete our tour of coastal Britain by showcasing the work that is taking place in the southern North sea, off the East Anglia coast. With the right investment in ports such as Lowestoft, so much more could be achieved that would not only enhance our energy security and propel us down the road to net zero, but help to deliver long-term economic growth.
Lowestoft port, which is likewise part of the ABP fleet, has a good story to tell. SSE has run its operations and maintenance base in the outer harbour since 2012, and ScottishPower Renewables has done likewise since 2019. ABP is progressing plans for the Lowestoft eastern energy facility. There will also be a direct air carbon capture demonstrator site in the inner harbour, which is being progressed by ABP in conjunction with Sizewell C. Lowestoft and Ipswich ports will also play important roles in delivering materials to the Sizewell C nuclear power station.
A good start has been made, but there are challenges immediately ahead that need to be addressed if we are to make the most of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. There is a global race for green investment. The UK should not and cannot get into a subsidy race to the bottom with the likes of the United States. Instead, we should work faster and smarter, building flexibly on what we have already achieved.
In his April report, UK offshore wind champion Tim Pick highlighted a variety of risks that have limited UK port investment. Some of those relate to the contracts for difference mechanism. I will not go into those in detail, as many of us will be back here tomorrow to take part in the debate on the subject led by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The report highlighted a variety of obstacles that need to be addressed. There are some interesting recommendations, which I will briefly highlight: an industrial growth plan; a support framework for offshore wind ports targeted at the risks that they face; and a recommendation that the Government should give offshore wind ports priority, just as they do to offshore wind farms, in the national policy statements. I would be most grateful if, in summing up, my right hon. Friend the Minister advised us how he and the Government will respond to Tim Pick’s report, with specific regard to promoting investment in port infrastructure.
In conclusion, over the past decade offshore wind has been a great British success story. We put in place a mechanism that has worked very well. However, due to geopolitical and inflationary pressures, it needs recalibrating. As part of that process, leading up to the autumn statement, we need to review the way we promote investment in port infrastructure. Ports such as Lowestoft are honeypots not only for decarbonisation but for job creation and regeneration. They are the link between offshore electricity regeneration and onshore supply chains. Nurture them properly and the dividends will be significant.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I am delighted to sum up in today’s debate on the contribution of ports to green energy. I really do thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing this debate, which it is important to have at this time.
This debate gives me the chance to highlight some of the benefits, from a Scottish perspective, of the development of ports north of the border, where our green port ethos is centred on the importance of net zero and the just transition. At the heart of the Scottish Government’s unique approach to our green ports is the commitment to the development of renewable technology, an innovative environment and the promotion of decarbonisation, alongside the creation of well-paid, high-quality jobs and skills development.
In that sense, the fair work practices agenda is embedded in our green ports from the get-go, and progress on freeports and green ports must be monitored and evaluated to ensure a just transition. We want to ensure that we make the most of the skillset we have in Scotland, valuing the existing expertise across the energy sectors while transitioning from oil and gas to renewables, and training up the new generation of workers into high-quality work.
In developing the Scottish green port model, the Scottish Government were mindful of the more negative aspects of freeports and their reputation for poor working practices, deregulation, weak productivity and the lack of real benefits for their surrounding areas. Instead, in Scotland, we are centring on sustainability, environmental concerns and fairness to boost innovation in renewables, and focusing on a prosperous growth agenda for our local communities based around our ports.
Douglas Ross
Given everything positive that the hon. Member has said about freeports in Scotland, does he agree that it is disappointing that the Scottish Greens, who are in government with his party in Holyrood, do not support Scotland’s two freeports?
Douglas Chapman
I worked very closely with the Minister, Ivan McKee, when the green ports project was at its inception. We worked with the UK Government at that time as well, and Mr McKee was very supportive of the whole concept. There is more I want to say today that might give the hon. Member a bit more reassurance that we see the green port opportunity as just that: a real opportunity to develop the economy of Scotland.
Others have mentioned their own constituencies; I am the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, which has one of the two green ports being developed in Scotland, at Rosyth on the firth of Forth, along with Leith and Grangemouth. I believe it will be transformative for the local economy and in trying to meet our environmental ambitions. The green port will feature a new freight terminal, offshore renewable manufacturing and green power generation capacity, skills development opportunities and new rail connections. The regeneration of this important logistical port should deliver a huge boost to the local community, through employment opportunities, and the wider economy in the surrounding area. It is good for energy security, good for creating prosperous communities and, importantly, good for the environment.
The Forth green port aims to bring £6 billion in private and public investment and will contribute £4 billion in gross value added. It has the potential to create 50,000 high-quality jobs, stimulate growth in renewable manufacturing, and develop offshore wind and various alternative fuel sectors. It will also support research and development investment and drive business growth for small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups.
Alongside the development of the green port, I have been campaigning for a number of years to reinstate the ferry connection from Rosyth to mainland Europe, which will not only boost connectivity and trade prospects, but contribute to a reduction in harmful emissions by reducing both the tourism carbon footprint and road miles for freight transport. It would also reduce the pressure on the land bridge ports in the south-east of England. It is a good example of joined-up thinking for the climate and for the economy. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will open their ears to this plea. The project currently has a logjam with the border and export authorities in London. If anything could be done to ease that pain, we could get ahead and ensure that the ferry service can start as soon as possible. In the Republic of Ireland, I have seen new ferry routes helping to boost exports. If Ireland can do it, why not Scotland?
The second green port will be based at the Inverness and Cromarty firth—another area steeped in industrial history and now playing a critical role in offshore wind. The project will place the highlands at the heart of the drive towards net zero. It will create 15,000 jobs in the area and a further 10,000 across Scotland and the rest of the UK, focusing on renewable and low-carbon energy production. Again, it is good for the economy, good for creating prosperous communities, and good for the environment.
Before I draw to a close, it is good to remind colleagues not just of the benefits of a just transition, but of its true definition. Scotland’s Just Transition Commission described it as a process whereby
“Governments design policies in a way that”
benefits the climate change agenda—benefits that are widely shared—but where
“the costs do not unfairly burden those least able to pay, or whose livelihoods are directly or indirectly at risk as the economy shifts and changes.”
I remind Opposition politicians that we are trying to lead on that in Scotland, but we need to focus on these ambitious climate and net zero targets to ensure that the just transition actually happens and remains meaningful.
In conclusion, the Scottish Government are committed to using the new green ports to attract investment into our economy. In addition, Scotland has all the potential to be a world-leading green energy producer, where the jobs, the revenue and the power rest with Scotland. The maritime sector also has a strong responsibility and an opportunity to be a key player in that ambition and to make the managed transition work for everyone. Between our industry sectors and Government, we can all benefit, but the message needs to be: let’s just do it.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing the debate and on a very good speech; I agree with most of what he said. It was also good to hear about the consensus and the joint work on the Celtic freeport from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and about his ambition for Port Talbot to be at the forefront of the floating offshore wind industry.
I also enjoyed listening to the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Moray (Douglas Ross), and it is always good to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about his commitment to net zero. It is clear that there has been a lot of consensus in the Chamber today. That demonstrates the strong consensus across the House about the importance of the green energy transition, and the good jobs and prosperity that it needs to create—and will create—up and down the country, particularly for port communities and other places with a strong industrial heritage, some of which have suffered economically in recent years, as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire pointed out.
Ports have a key role to play in helping to decarbonise energy generation, transport and industry. Their role as bases for the offshore wind industry and the skilled workforce that many of them have make them pivotal to the UK’s energy transition. Many ports are already playing that role with offshore wind and many more could unlock further power generation from floating offshore wind and—potentially—hydrogen.
Floating offshore wind is an exciting, pioneering technology, which allows us to tap into wind power further out at sea where the winds are stronger and more consistent, but the water is too deep for regular offshore wind facilities. We need to do everything we can to maximise the benefits of this industry. As it stands, there are no port facilities in the country that are fit for the mass deployment of floating offshore wind. Ports need investment and upgrading to be able to manufacture and assemble the components of those turbines and their bases at the required size, which I believe is up to 150 metres. These are huge pieces of kit that we need to be able to manufacture and assemble in the UK.
Crucially for ports, we also need new wind projects—both standard offshore and floating—to come forward for investment. That is another reason why the Government’s completely avoidable failure on offshore wind in the recent contracts for difference round was so disappointing, with no offshore wind or floating offshore bids. No new offshore wind projects means £2 billion more on families’ energy bills and means our energy security will be weakened.
Ministers were repeatedly warned about the impacts of higher inflation and setting an unrealistic strike price, but they did not act. Because of that missed opportunity, we will now be more dependent on expensive and polluting fossil fuels. Every wind farm that we fail to build leaves us more exposed to the whims of petrostates and dictators such as Putin. The Government are squandering our potential for offshore wind power, just as they squandered our potential for onshore wind by effectively banning it for so long. All this has resulted in higher bills, energy insecurity, fewer jobs and climate failure. Britain’s port communities and the rest of Britain deserve better.
That is why the next Labour Government will drive forward offshore and floating wind through major investments to our ports, providing £1.8 billion over five years to ensure that we can construct, manufacture, deploy and maintain offshore wind and marine renewables from UK harbours. This would be the biggest investment in our ports for decades, benefiting communities in Wales, Scotland and across the UK.
We will establish a national wealth fund. This will be a new strategic body to ensure that when public money is spent on building British businesses, the British people will benefit from the long-term return that those investments produce. That will ensure that the whole country benefits from the wealth and talent that are created in our nation, so that with every investment, jobs and economic benefits flow into our communities and the British people benefit from the return on those investments.
A Labour Government will invest to drive forward projects that are necessary to the energy transition and our industrial future, crowding in further private investment in crucial infrastructure. GB Energy will be able to de-risk new energy technologies, helping to speed up and scale up development in areas such as green hydrogen and floating offshore wind. With a target to achieve clean power by 2030, and making, buying and selling more in Britain, GB Energy will overturn the stagnation and offshoring of British jobs and manufacturing that have been caused by the neglect of the British wind power industry.
Industry is calling out for more support and more certainty so that it can make the long-term decisions to develop infrastructure and ensure that we have the critical capacity necessary to deliver our ambition for clean power. Industry will get that with Labour. The current Government are progressing FLOWMIS—the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—with up to £160 million of grant funding for port infrastructure, which is small change really, in relation to manufacturing facilities, and which will be inadequate without serious strategic investment in our nation’s ports, so that they are big enough and advanced enough for the most cutting-edge technologies. Compare that with Labour’s £1.8 billion commitment. Like others here, we want to see the money reaching ports, where it can make the most difference to jobs and power generation.
Will the Minister confirm when the awards will be made? Will it be enough to reach 5 GW of capacity by 2030? Owing to the Government’s handling of contracts for difference, we are understandably sceptical. On that point, will he outline his plans to recover the progress that we need to make on offshore wind, following the massive setback of CfD 5? Expanding offshore and delivering strategic port upgrades will be crucial for a renaissance of green jobs and opportunity in those communities. We want those port communities to be successful. Labour is committed to delivering that. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I begin by thanking and congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this important debate. We have heard high-class contributions from pretty much every person who has spoken so far. I will return, if I have time, to the trite and empty remarks—which were perhaps written by others—from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith).
Just by way of context, it is worth highlighting the record, because track records should count for something. Less than 7% of our electricity came from renewables in 2010. That was the dire inheritance of this Government. It was the CfDs developed and delivered by this Government that transformed the economics of offshore wind and which led us from the Labour record of less than 7% to nearly half in the first quarter of this year. We have gone from a desperate legacy, where nearly 40% of our electricity came from coal—the filthiest of fossil fuels—as recently as 2012 to that being eliminated next year under this Conservative Government. It is this Conservative Government who have led the world. We have cut emissions more than any other major economy on earth and grown our economy significantly at the same time.
We heard about crowding in private investment, Great British Energy and writing cheques, which is the last thing we need. We have heard that from Labour before, yet every Labour Government in history have ended with unemployment higher than it was at the beginning, when they started. They all offer hope and cheques for all, promises of huge support and endless taxpayer subsidy, which will deliver nirvana. Nirvana has never been delivered by Labour—not a green one and not any other kind. I said that bit would come at the end, but I had to indulge myself and do it at the beginning.
As has been said by everyone here today, ports are so important to unlocking the green revolution. As colleague after colleague have highlighted, from the Humber to Wales to Scotland, the southern North sea and Northern Ireland, ports have an enormous contribution to make to economic regeneration. The fact that we are blessed with this phenomenal renewable energy opportunity in the UK—which this Government, uniquely and unlike the previous, are committed to unlocking—means that we can turn levelling up from an excellent concept into genuine delivery. The previously highly carbon-dependent areas of this country are the very areas that genuinely need that, and they are best set to benefit from it. Their ports are what will make that possible.
I recognise the importance of existing port activity in south Wales in securing the UK’s and indeed Europe’s energy supply. Last year, rather than being, as in the previous year, a net importer of a billion cubic metres of gas, we moved to being an exporter of 19 billion cubic metres of gas, making a significant contribution to storage in Europe and the energy security of an entire continent. A lot of that came through south Wales. Of course, it is the two LNG terminals in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, on the Milford Haven waterway, that helped to deliver that. Looking forward, the success of the Celtic freeport bid, covering Milford Haven and Port Talbot, demonstrates the opportunity to unlock investment and therefore growth for the south Wales area and delivering those high-paid, long-term jobs that so many colleagues on the Government side of the House not only talked about, but have a history of delivering.
The right port infrastructure is vital to deliver offshore wind and other renewables, as part of our transition to net zero. Big though the energy business, carbon capture and related things are, perhaps the biggest opportunity here is what all this will facilitate. When we took on the COP presidency, just 30% of global GDP had made net zero pledges. By the time the presidency was handed on by the UK to Egypt, that figure stood at more than 90%. The world is following. If we create among the world’s first genuine net zero industrial clusters, the inward investment that will come—into non-directly energy-related, yet still energy-dependent businesses, as every business is—could be quite phenomenal. That is why colleagues are right to share their excitement and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire is right, again and again—alongside, as always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—to come here and enthuse about the importance of this and the opportunity it brings.
The Government’s policies, as set out in the British energy security strategy and endorsed in “Powering Up Britain” earlier this year, include bold new commitments, so that we can supercharge clean energy and accelerate renewable energy deployment. The Government set an ambition of 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030, up from just 14 GW today. The UK has the largest offshore wind sector in Europe and is home to all four of the largest offshore wind farms in the world. As part of that ambition, we are aiming for up to 5 GW of floating offshore wind. Colleagues have rightly highlighted the importance of ports to that, given the gargantuan scale of the products that will be required. Ports will play a vital part.
Colleagues have raised the issue of ensuring that we maximise the industrial heft and capability from this sector, which is why we are looking at reviewing the contracts for difference scheme and improving it with non-financial factors and other ways of encouraging industrial development.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) asked me what work we could do with the Crown Estate. The first thing is to work super closely with it, which we do. We are backed by colleagues from His Majesty’s Treasury, and it has been great to see how we can work together co-operatively to unlock this. As part of the tender for the offshore wind leasing round 5 in the Celtic sea, the Crown Estate will require floating wind developers to set out specific commitments to ports, as well as binding commitments on wider issues such as enhancing skills, addressing environmental impacts and delivering community benefits. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s reasonable question.
Douglas Chapman
During my summing up, I mentioned the ferry terminal from Rosyth to Europe. The Minister has brought in other issues such as skills, training and so on, but the other thing that we should think about is our ports for exports and ferry services. I noticed that he made a note that he would contact his colleagues at border control—that is a complete roadblock at the moment—to make sure that the ferry service can go ahead and be a success.
Graham Stuart
I certainly sympathise with the Scottish Government’s troubles and challenges with ferries. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, through my officials I will pass on that message to other Departments to facilitate that. Anything we can do to help, we will seek to do.
Graham Stuart
I will not.
The offshore renewable energy catapult has estimated that floating offshore wind could deliver more than £40 billion for our economy by 2050, creating about 30,000 jobs in the process. We are moving at pace to deliver those benefits, with more than 25 GW of floating wind projects with confirmed seabed exclusivity—the most in the world. The last thing we need to introduce into the excellent track record and system for bringing in private sector investment from all over the world—which we are proud of—is Labour’s plans for Great British Energy clunking into a carefully calibrated set of market mechanisms. That will have exactly the opposite effect of the objectives that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, set out.
Going further, the Crown Estate has announced its plans to hold a seabed leasing round in the Celtic sea, capable of supporting up to a further 4.5 GW, as we have heard. We also understand the importance to investors of certainty on a long-term leasing pipeline. If they can see the scale, we can get large-scale investment. We are acutely aware of that issue and are working closely with the Crown Estate and with other Government Departments. We must ensure that the multiple uses of our seas are thoroughly considered, so that we can then provide the visibility to unlock investments in ports, which will then unlock further investment.
The Government recognise the critical role that ports will play in achieving our green energy ambitions and the importance of securing investment in the infrastructure. They will also be a big enabler for offshore wind and a catalyst for wider supply chain development.
Stephen Kinnock
I am sure that the Minister is absolutely delighted that the voting interruption has given us some additional time. He was talking about floating offshore wind infrastructure. I do not know if he is coming to this, but I asked about grid capacity. There are real concerns that there will not be the grid capacity to facilitate all this, which is having an impact on developers’ thinking, too. What comments does he have on that?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for another excellent and well-made point. One of the biggest challenges facing my Department is ensuring that we have the facilitating infrastructure. No matter how interesting the generation is—nuclear, floating, fixed-bed, onshore, offshore—it does not really matter if the electrons cannot get where they need to. That is why we commissioned the Winser review on transmission, and I am really grateful to him for his work. We are going to be reporting back on that as soon as we can. We are working closely with National Grid and others to speed up the extraordinarily long times it takes to put that infrastructure in place. The hon. Member for Aberavon was right to say that if we want to realise our Celtic sea ambitions or our other ambitions around the UK, we need the facilitating infrastructure.
More locally, we are also focused on connections. We will shortly be coming out with a connections plan, because we have queues filled with projects that may never go ahead. We need to find ways to deal with that legally and properly. We now have a dedicated Minister for Nuclear and Networks, precisely because we recognise the challenge. The hon. Member for Aberavon is right to highlight that. We are working flat out on it and it is probably our top priority.
Stephen Crabb
On the important issue that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) raised about the grid, is the Minister aware of any specific work by National Grid looking at the grid needs of ports, so that we know which UK ports are going to be energy ports? We can predict where those locations are going to be and we can see activity already happening. Is National Grid doing a piece of work to map the grid requirements of the next 20 to 30 years and put together plans for individual port locations?
Graham Stuart
One recommendation of the Winser report was that we pull together a much more coherent overall spatial plan. In previous years, things were done on a fairly linear basis, as we have seen in East Anglia. We have been taking steps through the holistic network design—not necessarily the best title—in phases simply to ensure that we have a more strategic and joined-up approach. We cannot do it project by project; we have to plan the whole thing out. We want to take it from a regional basis to a national basis. Further information will be set out by the Government.
We are working with our European neighbours. I spoke to the German ambassador only this morning about the fact that all of us around the North sea need to think and work together on a common basis. If we do so, we will be better able to realise the huge opportunities in the surrounding seas, do so at the lowest possible cost and maximise European energy security and the jobs and benefits that spring from doing that work.
For floating offshore wind specifically, the industry road map 2040, developed by the floating offshore wind taskforce, identified the need for up to 11 ports across the UK to support the roll-out of commercial-scale floating offshore wind. That is a significant opportunity for the years to come. To support the industry, the Government launched the £160 million floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, asked about in one of the much more reasonable comments in his speech. We are doing everything we can to bring the timing of that forward and do the assessment, and I hope that we will be able to announce the next stage—due diligence—before the end of this year, but that is tight.
In the coming years, the UK and other countries will exponentially increase their offshore wind deployment in the North sea, the Celtic sea and across a range of new markets. We signed a memorandum of understanding with countries surrounding the North sea in the week before Christmas last year about our rejoining the North Seas Energy Co-operation forum, and we will be having another ministerial next month to ensure that we are working closely together.
We will work with industry, through RenewableUK and the Offshore Wind Industry Council, to assess supply chain needs, which so many colleagues have rightly raised, and to identify the opportunities for the UK to lead and benefit from sustainable growth in the industry, including through building new export opportunities. As a former exports Minister, I recognise that by leaning in ahead as we have done—we have cut our emissions more than any other country on earth—and developing the technologies and solutions, we then have the long-term opportunity to export it. If we can capture more than enough of that energy to meet our own needs, we can export it directly. We could also convert it into green hydrogen, and we can export that. We can also bring in the carbon that will still necessarily be emitted by certain industries and our western European neighbours and put that into the 78 gigatonnes of capacity we have in the North sea. There is so much to be done here, and it can make such a difference: it can bring about the renaissance of industry in the north-east and north-west of England, in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland, as well as all around the country. It is a very exciting thing.
As I said, ports are not just important for offshore wind. They will also play a key role for carbon capture and storage, supporting the decarbonisation of emitters. Maritime shipping will play a key role, linking emissions captured from the dispersed sites with offshore CO2 storage sites. Import and export ports across the UK that can handle large volumes of CO2 will be required to facilitate the transport and storage of CO2 via ships. We heard about the plans for the Humber and elsewhere, indeed including on the south coast as mentioned in the brilliant, albeit short, speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith).
On hydrogen, the Government recognise that port infrastructure will have a big role to play. We have a target of 10 GW of low-carbon production by 2030. As the hydrogen economy matures and the UK exploits export opportunities, we will need the right port infrastructure to accommodate large transport ships bringing in or taking away hydrogen, and we are determined to seize those opportunities for the UK economy. It is so important that we do not have an Administration who would do the exact opposite—and who have a track record of that.
Peter Aldous
Offshore wind champion Tim Pick has highlighted some of the obstacles that need to be overcome for the industry to realise its full potential. Some of that focuses on ports. Will the Minister provide a bit more detail on the Government’s response to his proposals and recommendations?
Graham Stuart
We are working with industry through the Offshore Wind Industry Council, of which I am a co-chair, to consider Tim Pick’s wide-ranging recommendations, including developing an industry growth plan. Again, this is to do with supporting the development of the UK supply chain and, as we do this massive deployment, trying to ensure that as much as possible of the industrial heft of that can be delivered through the UK and UK jobs. That work is ongoing, and we will keep going.
The hon. Member for Strangford will be aware that Northern Ireland has a target for 1 GW of offshore wind from 2030. SBM Offshore and Simply Blue are developing FLOW projects in Northern Ireland. Likewise, Simply Blue is developing the Erebus project in the Celtic sea.
I was asked about meetings. Notwithstanding any transport and logistical challenges, I would be delighted to come to Wales. I must pay tribute once again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, who is relentless, albeit always cheerful and well-considered, in promoting the need for understanding and engagement with his part of the world and the opportunities that offers for the whole of the UK in contributing to the global challenge on climate change and, most importantly, in delivering a more prosperous and better future for constituents in his part of the world. Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for chairing the debate.
Stephen Crabb
Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for your excellent chairing. I thank all colleagues who participated in what I thought was a useful, practical and good-natured debate. I always come away from these things having learned quite a lot about what is going on in different parts of the country. Really exciting things linked to renewable energy are happening in so many different port communities around the UK. We hope that that continues to go from strength to strength.
I really appreciated the winding-up remarks of the Minister, who always speaks with intelligence and passion. He really believes in what he talks about, and I know that he is engaged with industry, the Crown Estate and other stakeholders to try to make this vision a reality. I look forward to welcoming him to the port of Milford Haven in a matter of weeks, whenever we can get it arranged. That would be hugely welcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of ports to green energy.
Business Banking: Undesignated Client Accounts
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, on an issue that is affecting many businesses across a number of sectors. It is an issue that is extremely important to the businesses that are affected, and one that could have a significant impact on many businesses and their customers in future. I want to raise the situation faced by a number of small businesses with ongoing struggles to get access to the bank accounts that they need to carry out day-to-day functions and protect their clients’ customer funds.
Over the past couple of years, I have heard horror stories from a number of reputable and long-established companies that have been driven to the brink of closure as a result of how anti-money laundering regulations, particularly the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group guidelines, are being understood and implemented by UK banks. Many small businesses that deal with large quantities of client money use pooled client accounts, also known as undesignated client accounts.
I have a background in the marine industry, so I have a good understanding of, knowledge of and relationship with the industry. That is why, when the Association of Brokers and Yacht Agents reached out to me to highlight its concerns, I understood that it was a real issue and that I needed to work with the association, along with the Treasury and other relevant parties such as UK Finance and the Financial Conduct Authority, to try to resolve it. Yacht brokers are a very resilient bunch and are a key part of the UK’s marine industry, so when I hear that they are facing challenges that threaten their businesses, it is something of great concern that we must take seriously.
Although I initially raised this issue on behalf of the yacht broking industry, I have since learned that it is an issue that affects a number of other industries and sectors, including letting agents, estate agents, jewellers, care homes and even solicitors. I suspect it affects many more. I have had recent engagement with Propertymark, the professional body for property agents, which represents over 12,500 member branches in the UK, some of whom are being affected in the same way.
I will briefly explain why the yacht broking industry has come to use those types of accounts, and where we are up to with getting this resolved. In the early 2000s, the yacht broking industry faced a severe crisis when yacht broker and new boat dealer BA Peters went into liquidation. This created shockwaves throughout the industry, as BA Peters did not have a pooled client account in place. As a result, clients’ money was not protected when the company collapsed. Numerous individuals lost their deposits and the proceeds of sales, with some receiving only 23p for every £1 they were owed. It also resulted in a massive bill for the Insolvency Service to conduct a thorough investigation to try to identify client funds and into which of the many accounts they had been paid. This devastating experience exposed the vulnerability of client funds and the need for urgent safeguards.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. We spoke beforehand. Does she agree that some banks are being accused of using the legislation she referred to as a way of closing accounts that are not profitable? I have several examples from back home in Strangford—I could read out two pages of them—of businesses being given no other reason for closure than this legislation. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the loophole must be closed?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Something is going on, and it is worrying. Banks are there to help us with our personal finances, but they are also a key part of how all businesses operate within the UK. I would be very disappointed if they were taking a cynical approach to potentially reduce costs of applications. However, having heard that some organisations are now being requested to implement a number of individual accounts, maybe there is a business case for them to want to administer 1,000 bank charges rather than just one.
In the aftermath of this, the yacht broking industry came together to ensure that such a calamity could never occur again. It was unanimously agreed that all yacht brokers should establish pooled client accounts as a standard practice. The PCAs were designed to protect client funds and enhance transparency in financial transactions. That became industry standard practice and is a prerequisite for any business joining an association such as ABYA. It is now a requirement by many professional indemnity insurance providers to hold client funds in these accounts. To formalise those efforts, brokers that set up PCAs with banks obtained letters confirming that funds held in those accounts were exclusively client funds and not part of the broker’s trading capital. Thus, they could not be used to offset business loans or overdrafts with that bank. That strengthened the protection of clients’ interests and returned confidence to the marine sector.
In 2009, it was made compulsory for anyone acting as an introducer for marine finance or settling marine finance to be registered with the Office of Fair Trading. That was a significant step towards regulating the industry and ensuring that financial transactions adhered to established standards.
In 2015, the Financial Conduct Authority was formed. The FCA introduced the FCA Handbook, taking over regulatory oversight. In 2016, the FCA confirmed that yacht brokers did not fall within the scope of the FCA handbook for holding PCAs, but did need to be registered for acting as an introducer for finance and insurance.
In 2020, significant changes occurred to the anti-money laundering regulations. That was when I first heard of the struggles that the industry were coming up against. Anti-money laundering legislation was introduced in 2017, as were updated Joint Money Laundering Steering Group guidelines, but notably they did not mention yacht brokers being excluded from FCA registration, or that their PCAs could be assessed using a simplified due diligence approach. That led to confusion and concern within the industry. As a result, major UK banks such as Lloyds, HSBC, Barclays and NatWest started to refuse to open PCAs for yacht brokers and threatened a number of businesses with the closure of their accounts.
Over the following months, I heard numerous stories from businesses within the industry that were fearful that, should they have their accounts closed, they would be unable to trade. Reputable businesses that had been trading for decades were suddenly faced with that terrifying prospect. Many of those yacht brokers are small independent family-run businesses. Contrary to what often comes to mind when yachts are mentioned, they are not large businesses trading in multimillion-pound superyachts and they do not have thousands of pounds in capital behind them; they tend to be long-established reputable small businesses operating in our coastal communities, where the marine industry may be a key part of the local economy, selling smaller boats for UK leisure.
Some of those family-run businesses—registered UK companies—operate across borders to support UK clients to buy, sell or hire their boats. Many of their clients are repeat customers because of the great experience they have encountered and the reassurance and confidence that their funds are safe.
All ABYA-member brokers are required to abide by strict professional standards to minimise fraud and money laundering. Yacht brokers are required to complete “know your customer” checks to verify clients’ official documentation such as driving licences, passports and utility bills, to ensure that the documents are valid and that the person is not on the anti-money laundering or politically exposed persons lists.
Purchasers receive a legally signed sale and purchase agreement, and all transactions are done by bank transfer, so there is a full audit trail of the money. ABYA yacht brokers do not accept any form of cash payment. As I mentioned, brokers undertake their own checks and specific sale and purchase agreements for every transaction, and they rely on UK and EU banks to transmit funds to the PCA from their own bona fide and validated clients.
Despite the checks that brokers carry out and the detailed recording of transactions, the fact that UK banks now consider yacht broking to be a high-risk business might imply that UK banks are failing their customers’ AML and politically exposed person checks before opening their client accounts.
In January 2022, ABYA and I held a crucial meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was then the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and UK Finance. Following that meeting, he agreed to issue guidance allowing banks to simplify due diligence for opening and maintaining PCAs. That decision was made to try to temporarily ease the conflict between banks and account holders, and to encourage banks to keep accounts open while a comprehensive review of the anti-money laundering regulations was undertaken. This review was expected in December 2022 but, to the disappointment of both me and the industry, it was pushed back a year until December 2023. I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for the action and the interim guidance he provided in his previous role, but unfortunately that did not go far enough to prevent many banks from closing some of those accounts, which had a devastating impact on some of our small businesses.
In May 2020, we witnessed Barclays close the first pooled client account of a yacht broker because it was not registered with the FCA and part of its business involved cross-border transactions. Members will be unsurprised to learn that cross-border transactions are a fairly normal part of yacht sales, given the nature of boats. The stress that caused the company, including its potential collapse, and the impact on clients resulted in the director of that small UK-registered company suffering a mental illness for which, 18 months on, he is still receiving medical treatment and support.
That move set a worrying precedent. In May 2023, Barclays blocked the accounts of another company without appropriate notice, preventing the company from accessing its funds for three weeks. Not only that, but the bank transferred the funds from a European pooled client account into pounds sterling and placed the funds into the company’s account, without the authority of the clients whose funds were in the pooled client account. I understand that ABYA has asked the FCA to investigate that case, as it believes that Barclays had breached the provisions of the FCA handbook. As an aside, I have been made aware of another case in which such action by a UK bank has affected personal bank accounts, so I am concerned about how widespread that type of action is among some UK banks.
The FCA has acknowledged ABYA’s concern but has refused to conduct a full investigation and take appropriate action against Barclays, which I believe sets a dangerous precedent by endorsing Barclays’s actions and destabilising the security of PCAs for all industries. The FCA has advised ABYA that its members should report the incident to the financial ombudsman, which they have done, but they have been advised that it could take up to 18 months for it to report back.
To enable their business to continue trading, the directors of the affected company had to personally fund their clients’ sales and purchases, while Barclays sat on its client funds. That has also had a significant impact on the mental health of the directors of those businesses. Only last week, HSBC approached yacht brokers to ask them to stop using their pooled client accounts. I have recently been made aware that marine insurance companies, which have thousands of clients, are also being asked to cease using pooled client accounts.
The consequences of those developments extend beyond the yacht broking industry. They are a concerning precedent, which indicates that funds held in PCAs for clients may not be as secure as was previously believed. The situation has implications not only for the yacht industry but for lawyers, estate agents and care homes, as I have mentioned. Only last week, Propertymark members reported that Lloyds had threatened one of their members with account closure if they continued to use PCAs. That forced the property agent to open and hold individual client accounts for the rents and deposits of every landlord they worked for, and this particular agent was working with over 100 landlords.
ABYA has been at the forefront of the efforts to address the issue. It has tried to push various individuals who have influence over the matter to work together and with the industry to find short and long-term solutions. The Treasury has met and been in communication with ABYA’s chairman, Peter Norris, and has agreed to meet him again. For that, I am grateful. I am also grateful for the continued engagement I have received from the Treasury and its Ministers over the last 18 months. ABYA has worked to strengthen its code of practice and engage with banks consistently over the past couple of years. ABYA has candidly and consistently said that it will put in place whatever measures and changes to its code of conduct are necessary to ensure that banks have confidence to offer these services to ABYA members.
Since the FCA’s confirmation that yacht brokers do not need to register to hold PCAs, one bank has asked its customers to register as a high-value dealer with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for anti-money laundering purposes. ABYA is currently in consultation with HMRC to see whether it is possible to register as a high-value dealer, as such registrations normally apply only to businesses that deal in cash transactions of over £10,000 or €10,000. I understand that HMRC is questioning whether that is a necessary registration.
It has been a particularly tiring and frustrating few years for the industry, and ABYA and other industry representatives can only do so much. They have shown their willingness to find solutions, but we need the same willingness and drive to find a solution. As I have mentioned, these are often long-established small businesses or sole traders. Like any businesses, these companies are lifelines for their owners, employees and local economies, and they rarely have significant capital reserves to keep them afloat while seeking a resolution with the banks. It has been heartbreaking to hear the panic and distress that some of the businesses have been put through. Some business owners have been driven to the point of illness or, in some cases, have wanted to take their own life because of the stress of the potential loss of their business. As someone who ran a business prior to becoming an MP, I can totally empathise and understand how those business owners may be feeling.
Can the Minister confirm that there will be no more delay in bringing forward the consultation on the review of the anti-money laundering regulations? Can the Minister also assure me and those listening that he and the Treasury are engaging with the banking sector to represent the views of these small businesses, which are struggling to survive as a result of the actions that have been taken? Will he commit to urgently finding a short-term solution for this very real issue, which is having a devastating impact on people’s businesses and livelihoods?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) for highlighting this important issue. She has been tenacious, and I convey my distress at the frustration suffered. The industry is an historic one and is important to us. She and I have worked together in the past to support the small and medium-sized enterprises of this great nation, but not until today had I realised the importance of the yacht broking industry. I also know about her passion for sailing, which is reflected in her role as patron of the Medway and Swale Boating Association. I am sure that all her members are metaphorically, and probably physically, cheering her on today. I reassure her that I share her concern about the issue.
Earlier this year the Treasury requested that the FCA lead a review into the wider matter of de-banking, to ensure that the sector was not overreaching itself through the unfair denial of banking services—in one case, based on a customer’s political beliefs. That is not the matter before us, but it highlights my concern, and the action that I took then is replicated when we find other instances in the financial sector. A bank account, as we know, is a vital part of the way in which we operate in society.
We try to get the balance right with a commitment, which I know my right hon. Friend understands, to tackling illicit finance. It is important that we get that balance right and do not put a disproportionate burden on legitimate businesses and customers. Indeed, the world of financial regulation is fraught with well-intentioned regulations that nevertheless have deleterious unintended consequences. This is an example. Pooled client accounts have many virtues. They protect customers so that when a firm fails, their deposits and moneys are segregated. They are a vital part of how we protect consumers. It is a concern that we see banks perhaps having a misperception about the risk of those accounts and the regulation.
It is wrong—I am happy to share this with my right hon. Friend—to say that pooled client accounts are not eligible for simplified due diligence. Last year, my predecessor wrote to the chair of UK Finance, the relevant industry body, to reiterate the importance of that when it came to looking at the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group, the industry group that deals with that. My predecessor convened a roundtable with banks and the Association of Brokers and Yacht Agents to help to develop and improve mutual understanding and iron out the issues.
Banks can apply simplified due diligence to pooled client accounts where they assess the risk of money laundering and terrorist finance to be low. My right hon. Friend gave us some really good examples of that. I am not sure that there are many Russian oligarchs sailing up and down; delightful though Medway and Swale Boating Association is, I am not sure it is the destination of choice for illicit ill-gotten gains. We will, at my right hon. Friend’s urging, continue to work to improve the guidance notes and work with the industry to make sure we can achieve the objectives that she talks about.
I am also happy to give my right hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. She has been very patient and tolerant. I understand her and her constituents’ frustrations, but there will be no further delays. After having consulted earlier this year, we intend to look at how we can improve and reform the anti-money laundering procedures. As I say, we are dealing here with the law of unintended consequences. I believe that we can reconcile both objectives through better guidance and greater clarity and, where necessary, adjusting the regulations.
My message to those banks and financial intermediaries is that they should continue to engage. I know that they also do so with my noble Friend Baroness Penn. I hope that by so doing, and with that collaborative approach, we will “chart a route”—someone has been getting creative—to an effective resolution that steers us into calmer waters and that, once we are through this, it will be plain sailing.
Question put and agreed to.
Hate Crime Against the LGBT+ Community
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of hate crime against the LGBT+ community.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I sincerely thank all colleagues present for attending today’s debate. I draw attention to my membership of the all-party parliamentary group on global LGBT+ rights, my role as co-chair of the LGBT+ parliamentary Labour party and, sadly, my own experience as a victim of LGBT+ hate crime.
I begin by thanking Stonewall, Galop and many other national organisations that speak up on these issues. Locally, in my constituency, I think of groups such as Pride Cymru and Glitter Cymru. I also want to mention the LGBT+ Safe Spaces venues, from our clubs and pubs to inclusive religious venues, and places such as the Queer Emporium in Cardiff, not to mention their brave security staff and managers, for all they do to keep our communities safe and welcome.
The fact is that, despite all the legal progress we have made in this country and the rapidly changing and welcome debate, particularly among younger generations, this is a perilous and profoundly uncertain time for the LGBT+ community in the UK. I would never seek to downplay the even worse threats of death and violence, let alone the absence of basic legal rights in many other contexts globally, but I can genuinely say that we are not in a good place here and things are getting worse.
That view is not just anecdotal. It is borne out by clear evidence and trends that I will come on to, and is sadly borne out by the stark, horrific reality that we saw in the homophobic murder of kind, compassionate Dr Gary Jenkins in my city of Cardiff in 2021. We can all think back to the horrors of the Admiral Duncan bombing in 1999 and the Stephen Port murders in 2014 to 2015 in east London, and all the failures around how that case was handled.
We are all aware of ongoing and more recent incidents, but I am conscious of the House sub judice rule and I will, therefore, refrain from commenting on a number of them. I know that colleagues will want to take particular care on that matter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. Unfortunately, I cannot stay for the debate; I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that I have a prior appointment. As someone interested in human rights issues, I want to put on the record my condemnation of those who carry out hate crimes against anybody, wherever that happens. I fully support what the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, which I want to put on the record.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Member for his support, which is genuinely welcome. The cross-party group that we have here today reflects the wide concern across the House at recently released statistics.
I will refer to my own experiences, which are sadly all too common for others. I have been assaulted with a homophobic element in my own constituency in broad daylight. I have been told online by somebody that he would sort me and my issues out while I was at football, while posting pictures of me dressed up at Pride. I have been called a “faggot” while walking along Queen Street in Cardiff. Like many other members of the community, I have worried whether it is safe to kiss my boyfriend or hold his hand on the bus or the tube. Even as a parliamentarian on an overseas trip, I was told to my face that people like me are detested.
In National Hate Crime Awareness Week, rather than belittling the impact of hate crime or suggesting that it is a “woke” irrelevance, it is critical that we look into the impact that attacks are having on the community, across the country, against people who just want to love who they love, live as themselves and get on with their daily lives. In the UK in 2023, the place of LGBT+ people in society, and their safety and wellbeing—is it really such a difficult thing to ask?—simply should not be contested notions, be up for debate or, worse, lead to violence, intimidation or assault; and yet here we are.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this incredibly important debate. The figures from my local police force, North Wales police, are staggering: the number of hate crimes based on transgender identity has surged by 771%. When we bear in mind that it is likely that only one in 10 hate crimes are reported, that gives us a sense of the level of suffering and the sheer size of the problem that we have to deal with.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight not only the increase, but the context of significant under-reporting. We all ought to be shocked.
This is Hate Crime Awareness Week, and the reality is that hate crime remains stubbornly high across the piece. Not least in the current context, given the despicable incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobic hate crime, we must rightly focus on religious hate crime, and race-related hate crime remains stubbornly high. That is before we consider the less looked-at but equally important disability-related examples or, of course, the widespread epidemic of violence against women and girls.
Despite a slight year-on-year fall in sexual orientation-based hate crimes, the total number of anti-LGBT+ hate crimes remains well above 2018 levels, with 28,834 recorded this year, a net increase of 217% since 2017-18.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on sharing his own personal experience. Those of us who have faced homophobic or—as I have—lesbophobic abuse know that it takes it out of us, quite frankly. How many more people have to share their stories or experience violence before we see a regression? As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we are talking about hate crime in the round. Does he agree that if those at the very top of Government make statements that attack some in our community, that only makes it more dangerous for everyone and justifies hate crimes against everyone?
Stephen Doughty
As the hon. Member knows, I totally agree with her. The scale of this issue is staggering. Those statistics in practice mean 79 incidents a day—one roughly every 20 minutes—in 2023. Of course, there is better police awareness and reporting in some cases, but there is significant under-reporting. Fewer than 10% of LGBT people told the national LGBT survey in 2018 that they felt comfortable reporting hate crimes to the police, so it is likely that the statistics are a drop in the ocean.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. He has just talked about some of the statistics. Does he agree that things are even harder for LGBTQ+ black and minority ethnic people? One of the things that was flagged up with me when I attended Black Pride this year was that a number of people in that community still do not feel comfortable reporting to the police. The figures are just the tip of the iceberg.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I commend Black Pride and many of the other organisations that do incredible work in this area. The intersectionality of hate crime statistics should be deeply shocking to us all.
We heard about North Wales police. My force, South Wales police, provided me with its latest statistics. Just in the period from October last year to September this year, the force recorded 645 hate crimes related to sexual orientation, resulting in 33 charges, and 170 reports of transgender-related hate crimes, resulting in five charges. I am reassured by how seriously my local force takes these issues—I have had many conversations with it—and I have heard other positive examples while preparing for the debate, from Avon and Somerset to Lancashire to Norfolk, but there are significant challenges in some places. In London, the Casey report showed that trust in the Metropolitan police has fallen faster among LGBT+ Londoners than among non-LGBT+ Londoners. Leadership and action are far too patchy across England; in the absence of a central hate crime strategy, they depend too often on individual police and crime commissioners and forces.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. It comes at a time of a significant rise in hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community. I stood with the trans community in Merthyr Tydfil with Merthyr Pride last week at a rally. My hon. Friend mentioned the figures supplied by his police force, which is the same as mine. Does he agree that the particularly venomous comments from the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and other senior Tories do nothing to support those figures and will increase the problem further?
Stephen Doughty
I greatly endorse what my hon. Friend said, and I welcome the work of Merthyr Pride. I think that was the first such event to take place in Merthyr, and the organisation does amazing work. I will come on to some of the context driving this.
We have colleagues here from across the United Kingdom. The Police Service of Northern Ireland records transphobic incidents and crimes motivated by transphobia, but unfortunately there is no enhanced sentencing for that motivation or hostility. We see a more positive picture in Wales, despite the statistics. The Welsh Labour Government’s LGBTQ+ action plan specifically covers safety, online hate, improving reporting and investing in local hate crime prevention programmes. In Scotland, there is a hate crime strategy focused on data, tackling crime online and on public transport, and supporting organisations working on these issues.
The effects of hate crime are deep and pernicious. They can unravel the lives of those who are among the most vulnerable in our society, and in the worst cases lives are lost and serious injury occurs. I pay tribute to all those who have been affected in that way, to their families and to all victims. But for many other victims of less violent offences, the crime itself is only the beginning. Some 42% of victims of hate crime felt a loss of confidence or felt vulnerable following the crime, compared with 19% for all other crimes; 29% of hate crime victims had difficulty sleeping, in comparison with 13% for all crimes; and 34% of hate crime victims suffered from anxiety or panic attacks compared with 14% for others.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important debate. I worry that too often the focus does not come from the point of view of the individuals who may be subject to this type of violence and their voices are suppressed. Does he agree that we must remember the unique position of LGBTQ+ women in our discussions?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. I spoke earlier about intersectionality. When we look at wider violence against women and girls, or violence related to race or disability, there can be a double or triple whammy for people experiencing violence on the basis of who they are. It is simply unacceptable.
Given the shocking record and the shocking increases that we have seen in recent years, it is no wonder that many LGBT+ people—people we all represent—feel less safe and more afraid to walk down the road holding hands with their partner, to present themselves as they wish and to remain authentic, honest versions of themselves. But it does not have to be this way. We know that we are capable of providing vibrant, diverse, dynamic, beautiful and inclusive communities.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I apologise that I will not be able to stay until the end. We have heard from others how the current climate has been fostered by the very unprofessional and negative comments from some Cabinet members. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister what she will do to raise that with Cabinet members and ensure that they stop making things worse?
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with what my hon. Friend says. It is worth looking at the fact that in 2013 the UK was rated as the best place in Europe for LGBT+ equality. We had taken pride over many years in being a beacon of the furtherance of LGBT+ rights. Indeed, there was a broad political consensus around advancing those rights; let us not forget that it was a cross-party coalition of Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and other parties represented here that passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. I was proud to serve on its Bill Committee.
However, today we see increasingly regressive forces in our politics, with sometimes explicit and sometimes more insidious attempts to divide and demonise our community; an increasingly hostile media and online environment; the influence of globally regressive forces, from Putin to the extreme religious right; and, across society more broadly, others vilifying our community and weaponising debates about our rights and, in many cases, even our existence. Shamefully for the Government, that means that since 2013, the UK has dropped to 14th place in the ILGA-Europe rainbow index, lagging behind the rest of western Europe.
Where once we had Prime Ministers who took pride in Britain being a leader on LGBT+ rights, we now see the plight of our community demeaned to cheap punchlines or political dog whistles. Where once we had consensus, compassion and kindness—and, indeed, legal action—now there is division, polarisation and a perpetuation of insidious culture wars. Quite frankly, we deserve better. Our constituents deserve much better.
I am proud that Labour has set out the need for a different approach—one that does not treat LGBT+ rights as a political football or an afterthought. It is a fact that hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and disability are not punished as severely as those based on other protected characteristics. I am proud that we have committed a Labour Government to fixing that injustice by equalising the law so that LGBT+ and, indeed, disability-related hate crimes are treated as aggravated offences. We will provide real accountability and assiduously pursue those who seek to harm an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
One of the most concerning trends in recent statistics is the 11% increase in hate crimes committed against transgender people. Tragically, I would think that that would come as no surprise to any of us in this room. We have all seen the way in which the discussions around these issues have been conducted in recent years, with escalatory rhetoric increasingly poisoning and polarising our discourse. Of course there are valid, important and complex issues to be discussed, but the lives and experiences of an already small and vulnerable community are increasingly abstracted into a reductionist zero-sum game and, in many cases, people are dehumanised and targeted.
We see it with the rise of anti-trans rhetoric online, as well as in cheap shots politically. We also see it quantitatively in surveys of British public opinion. The latest British social attitudes research reports that the proportion of British people who describe themselves as being prejudiced against transgender people has increased from 18% to 36% since 2019. Most alarmingly, we see it in the sharp increase in anti-transgender hate crime, which is up 11% in one year. In the past six months alone, Galop, which does excellent work, has seen a 76% increase in trans people seeking support to deal with serious incidents.
In closing, I ask the Minister for clarity in a number of areas. First, will the Government end what the Law Commission calls a “hierarchy of protection” and bring about real parity between groups of all protected characteristics, or will it fall to a Labour Government to find the courage to take that step forward? LGBT+ people rightly feel that the current political set-up is weighted against them because the Government have failed to make achievable and critically necessary reforms such as introducing an inclusive ban on conversion therapy. How can the Government say that they are concerned with the plight of LGBT+ people while they continue to quietly acquiesce in that abhorrent practice? Lastly, given the shocking statistics, what specific support will the Minister give to the trans and non-binary community? Will she commit to stamping out the divisive and horrific rhetoric that comes from some parts of her own Government?
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for bringing forward this important debate in such a timely manner, with the release of the latest hate crime statistics from the Home Office. It is a pleasure to see the Minister for Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), in his place. I am very grateful that he is here.
We do not have a lot of time, which is a shame because there is so much that could be said. However, there are some important things that I want to raise, to add to what the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has already mentioned. I start from the position that the LGBT+ community has—and must have—the same right to live a peaceful life as anyone else in this country, but sadly that so often is not the case, as we see in the latest statistics. I refer to some of the work that I and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) have done in this space over the past year or so as co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on global LGBT+ rights.
As we have heard, the statistics, although depressing in themselves, are actually only part of the picture, because there is massive under-reporting. Last year, the police recorded 24,000 hate crimes in England and Wales linked to sexual orientation and more than 4,700 cases linked to gender identity. Those figures represent increases of 112% and 186% respectively over the past five years.
As a London MP, it would be remiss of me not to mention Greater London, the Casey report and, not least, some of the tragic events that we have seen outside LGBT+ venues recently, including Two Brewers in Clapham not that long ago. Over the past five years in London alone—a city that we all assume is incredibly tolerant—hate crime has increased by 65% against people who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, and by 129% against those who have a transgender identity.
That is not helped by a lack of trust in the police, which was identified by the Casey report on the Metropolitan police. I welcome the steps that the new Met commissioner is trying to take to repair that, but trust in London’s police has fallen to an all-time low of 64%. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what discussions the Home Office has had with the Metropolitan police about the contents of the Casey report and how it intends to keep track of the quality of the improvements that the Metropolitan police must make to repair its relationship with the LGBT+ community.
It has already been mentioned that the Home Office’s own blurb accompanying the statistics mentioned the public and toxic debate around trans rights that is happening in this place and across much of the media and academia. As many people in the Chamber have said, and as I have said before, we must find a way to lead from the front and take the heat and toxicity out of these discussions, because nobody wins from them. If any political party or candidate thinks that going into the next election on a platform of going after the LGBT+ community is smart—I am speaking to all political parties here; we have to be honest that all of us have had issues in our parties—they are mistaken. We must all stand up to that in our own political parties and try to stamp it out as much as possible. The LGBT+ community are not our enemy, they are not a threat and they are not dangerous. We cannot be surprised that trust in institutions such as the police reduces when these things are not stamped out.
Like the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, who spoke so eloquently about this, I have not been without attacks in my own constituency. Thankfully, I have never been physically assaulted, but I have been on the receiving end of homophobic abuse just going about my day-to-day work. Sadly, I am sure that other colleagues will bring up examples of what they have experienced. It is truly devastating, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said. It knocks it out of you and you wonder, “Why on earth am I putting myself in this position?” You think, “Why should I put myself in harm’s way? I don’t want to hold my partner’s hand in public. I don’t want to show affection in public. I don’t want to be my authentic self in public.” I am more worried about an attack than I am about being my authentic self. That absolutely is not right in 21st-century Britain.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Member is absolutely right: if we are cowed and go into the darkness, the bigots win. In an interesting article, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that the US Christian right, militant European Catholics, Russian Orthodox hardliners and even sanctioned oligarchs are working concerted campaigns to undermine reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights across the world. We need to remember that when we talk to our own colleagues and others who seek to divide liberal democracies across the world.
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing that up, because she is absolutely right. Indeed, we have seen that in the work we have done in the APPG on global LGBT+ rights, particularly in parts of east Africa—not least Uganda, where an anti-homosexuality Bill was recently passed. There is massive geopolitical influence, with efforts to push an anti-human rights and anti-LGBT+ agenda as a way of exerting influence. We must be able to track where the money is going. We know it comes from the actors that she eloquently outlined, and we must call that out and stamp it out as much as humanly possible.
I do not want to go on for much longer, but I have a few questions for the Minister and I would be grateful if she would cover them in her response. The Home Office’s hate crime action plan for England and Wales has not been updated for years. Will she commit to updating it? What discussions has the Home Office had with the Metropolitan police and other police forces about homophobia in their own forces and how they plan to rebuild trust with the LGBT+ community? Will she offer an assurance that despite some of the rhetoric we have heard, it is a priority for the Home Office to get this right and to stamp that out? We were a leader in global LGBT+ rights. We must be a leader again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I ask colleagues to stick to between two and half minutes and three minutes, tops.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on calling it. I am proud to speak as Plymouth’s first-ever out Member of Parliament, which gives me a special responsibility not only to share my personal experience, but to speak up for communities who often feel neglected and abused by those in this place.
We know that hate crime is on the rise. It is on the rise in Plymouth; it is on the rise in all our communities. As politicians, we can choose whether we calm things or fan the flames of hate. That is a choice we can make. Despite progress over many years, LGBT hate crime rose by 186% in the past five years, according to Stonewall. How we tackle that hate crime matters, and it requires leadership from the top.
Like many people, I have been attacked because of who I am. I am proud to be a massive gay: it is part of who I am, it is part of my identity and I celebrate it. My office has been vandalised with homophobic graffiti; I have had homophobic threats and messages left on my answer machine; and I have received an enormous amount of abuse simply for tweeting a picture of me and my boyfriend on Valentine’s day. That is an experience that happens to far too many LGBT people throughout the country—being authentically themselves makes them a target. We should be in no doubt that we must call that out. That is why in the run-up to the next general election, it is incumbent on us all, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said, to call out hate wherever it comes from—whatever dark recesses of the communities we represent—but especially from those people who aspire to and occupy the highest offices of our country.
We have had a Prime Minister who refused to apologise for calling gay men “tank-topped bum boys”. We have a Home Secretary who has accused LGBT asylum seekers of faking their sexuality. As an MP, I have campaigned hard to stop the Home Office deporting gay asylum seekers to countries where they would be killed because of their sexuality. We have had senior Tory MPs saying that marriage between men and women is
“the only possible basis for a safe and successful society.”
I believe in the family—I think the family unit is at the heart of things—but I will not tell any single person what their family should look like. That is what we should aspire to.
When we have a Prime Minister whipping up transphobia, that is right out of the culture war playbook. That is why I want to ask the Minister whether she has heard of the CAT strategy, which will apparently form the basis of Government policy between now and the general election. It will focus on climate, asylum seekers and trans people. The culture war playbook is deliberately designed to divide. Leadership matters. We need the right leaders who build bridges and take the difficult step to unite, not the easy step to divide.
Has the Minister heard of that strategy? What is she doing to police other Ministers who make such divisive comments? Has she called out the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister on their recent divisive comments? If she has not, who does that within Government? If we are to tackle hate crime, we need to tackle it from the top, which means making sure that all the words we use, all our behaviours and all the campaigns we run respect everyone being able to be authentically true to themselves and being able to do so safely in every part of our country.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I will speak briefly from my own experiences and perspectives as someone who, before my election to this place, was physically assaulted for being who I am. It is incredibly important that we tackle the root causes that motivate and cause such behaviours against members of the LGBT community, which is why I am so pleased to support the hon. Gentleman’s debate.
As we tackle this hideous behaviour, though, it is also important that we lead by example and hold our own community to account, just as we would the wider public, because in the quest to reduce instances of hate crime against the LGBT community, we also have to look at our own behaviours within it. It is simply unacceptable for those who may well have been impacted by hate issues previously to provoke and manufacture homophobic hate against staff or innocent supporters of an MP for political purposes, especially when they are fuelled by alcohol. I am afraid that this is a growing issue and one that I have personally faced as recently as this week, in my home town of Sherborne. I put on the record my thanks to Dorset police for responding so promptly and for their help in calming an extraordinarily aggressive situation.
At Manchester Pride last year, the current shadow Leader of the House of Commons—the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who is a Labour Member—turned up with her supporters in T-shirts bearing the words “Never kissed a Tory”. I am sorry to say so, but she should be ashamed for doing that and for making some people—
Chris Loder
Yes, I have. As I was saying, I believe that the hon. Member for Manchester Central should be ashamed for doing that, and for making some people who do not share her political views uncomfortable for joining a Pride event—an event at which we should be united and not divided. I believe that it is as much our duty to call out such instances of hypocrisy within the community when we see them as it is to call out those outside the community who serve hate against us. I will not be threatened nor intimidated by that sort of nastiness. That kind of behaviour does not just stem from drunken louts, but can start and be fomented by supposedly upstanding members of the community.
When such comments originate from those who hold elected office, I hope they are taken into account at election time. Where the proprietors of local businesses spread that form of hate, I hope their customers fully know the values of that business and consider to whom they give their custom in future. Manufactured hate against gay people by gay people for the purposes of political difference is still hate. It has no place in our society, nor in our community, and where it happens and has happened, I shall shine an intense light on it—as I hope everybody will.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be in this debate with you in the Chair, Ms Cummins. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing the debate on hate crimes against LGBT+ people as part of National Hate Crime Awareness Week.
I recognise that there is a rising trend of hate crime across the board, as our society becomes more divided. Those politicians who seek to peddle the politics of blame and division have a great deal of responsibility on their hands. We have seen a rise in that kind of politics across the globe, and sadly in some areas of our country. Today at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that
“the words we say here have an impact beyond this House.”
We have seen that sometimes global issues have an effect on levels of hate crime for other reasons, and we are conscious of that today.
We are also conscious of some others. Problematising members of the community, particularly trans members of the LGBT community, othering them, and perpetrating discourse that casts them as a threat and a danger to children—the usual tropes that many who are old enough and have been involved in politics as long as I have remember from the 1980s—can end only with one effect. It is the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth outlined effectively in his speech, and that we have heard about in other contributions: a massive increase in hate crime on the basis of sexual orientation in the past five years, up 112%. Hate crime against trans people is up 186%. In Merseyside, where my constituency of Wallasey is, hate crime based on sexual orientation is up 162%, and against trans people it is up 1,033%.
I ask the Minister what the Government are planning to do, given that six Cabinet Ministers took to the podium to rail against the trans community and so-called gender ideology and wokeism at the recent Conservative party conference? The Home Secretary’s speech was
“a signal to people who don’t like people who are LGBT+ people.”
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Conservative chair of the London Assembly as he was being thrown out of that conference. Let us get a grip. Let us remember that real people are involved. When hate crimes rise it ruins lives. Let us do something about it and let us unite to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. I have to impose a time limit of two minutes.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing this debate, and I am pleased to see the Minister present.
Many Members here today, in the most LGBT-represented Parliament in the world, are openly gay. We often reflect on how far we have come: same-sex marriage, equalised age of consent, the ban in the armed forces lifted, and the welcome recent apology by the Prime Minister for our LGBT veterans. However, the very fact that we are having this debate and the shocking statistics underlying it mean that there is no room for complacency.
Just over a week ago, I returned from a visit to Ghana as part of Parliament’s delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. There were other reasons for Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), to visit: we wanted to understand the situation with that country’s horrific proposed anti-LGBT legislation, which actively reduces human rights and criminalises people for simply who they are and whom they love, and we wanted to share our story about our nation’s progress.
Against the backdrop of a changing picture in parts of Europe, Africa and America, and a challenging dialogue in this country, we must be mindful of changes in the law and keep acting to protect human rights. I repeat my call for an inclusive ban on conversion therapy. The fact that we have people being abused, assaulted and, in the most extreme examples, stabbed and murdered in our country for just being who they are and loving whom they love is shocking and deeply saddening. Hate and abuse targeted towards anyone because of their sexuality or gender must never be acceptable in our community. This debate gives us an important opportunity to press the Minister to do more, and be seen to do more, to drive down the shocking statistics.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this important debate and for his passionate speech, which I associate myself with very much.
The statistics that my hon. Friend set out were absolutely shocking, but they are only the reported crimes. As we know, only one in 10 LGBTQ+ people report hate crimes or incidents. It is even more worrying and upsetting that over recent months we have seen Government spokespeople specifically using trans people—who already struggle against prejudice day in, day out—as a political football, for no reason other than stoking a culture war.
The Government’s words matter. I met a group of parents of trans young people in Salford on Sunday. The Government’s words mattered to them, and they mattered to the young people. I heard stories about how horrified those young people were when the Prime Minister made certain statements during his conference speech, and how in some cases those young people felt they had no place in the world. Some had even considered suicide. The Government must understand that their words have an impact, not just on increases in hate crime but on the mental health of the people they affect.
We have a moral duty in this place to speak up for those we feel are disenfranchised, and we have a moral duty to choose our words carefully. I am proud that Britain is a tolerant, respectful and inclusive country but, as the charity Stonewall states,
“a lack of positive action and threats to existing rights are taking the UK off course.”
We cannot allow that to happen. I urge the Minister to really take action today and listen to the words of my colleagues.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this important debate and for the words he put so well.
In just over a month, on 20 November, we will mark Transgender Day of Remembrance. It is a moment for communities around the world to honour the memory of transgender people whose lives have been lost in acts of anti-transgender violence. In 2021, that was 375 people. We are facing a crisis. As we have heard today, LGBTQ+ hate crime is rising at a terrifying rate. The figures are startling, but what is worse is that they do not even represent the full picture. In the Government’s national LGBT survey, more than 91% of respondents said that the most serious incidents they had experienced in the preceding 12 months had not been reported. Those incidents included sexual assault and physical violence. That evidence is supported by Galop, which has said so much in the last year. It has seen a 65% increase in LGBT victims coming forward for its support.
As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, we have slipped down the charts in terms of being LGBTQ+ friendly, and that should shame us all. Instead of taking steps to address the crisis, reduce hate and ensure that those who experience it can access all the support they need, our politics is focused on fuelling it:
“Transgender issues have been heavily discussed by politicians, the media and on social media over the last year, which may have led to an increase in these offences”.
Those are not my words, but the words of the Home Office. Filling the public domain with toxic language that dehumanises LGBTQ people has real, life-threatening consequences, and it is telling that those in this place who often spread hate are not here to listen to those consequences. When the Prime Minister suggests to his Conservative conference that transgender identities are not valid, his words do not go into a void: they have repercussions.
What must we do? We must get the hate crime action plan back and ensure that we bring in a total ban on conversion therapy. It is incredibly important that this issue is taken as seriously as it can be. We should stamp out hate as much as we can.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for an immeasurably heartfelt speech. He is so passionate about this issue, which we have discussed many times.
Hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation are up by 112% compared with this time five years ago. For trans people, that figure rises to 186%. Figures for West Yorkshire released in June 2022 showed a 39.9% rise in transphobic incidents in that year. Christina, a trans woman who supports victims through the charity TransLeeds, said that she was not surprised by the figure:
“I feel that is significantly low compared to what the real numbers would be because a lot of people don’t report. We still get a lot of mis-gendering, a lot of dead-naming. It doesn’t make someone feel safe when they are trying to report something that has happened to them.”
Last month, we heard our Home Secretary stand on the global stage and tell the world that being gay is not reason enough to seek asylum. There are still 11 countries where being gay carries the death penalty. Is the Home Office suggesting that we send gay people back to countries where they could be killed by their own Governments? Two weeks ago, the Tory party conference hinged on humiliating and scapegoating vulnerable people, with an obsessive focus on trans and gender non-conforming people. The Conservatives seem obsessed with trans and non-binary people. They tell us that our children are at risk simply because of the existence of LGBTQ+ people.
The moment we are in is a dark one. We live in a country that is unsafe for queer people, and have a ruling party that is fuelling transphobia and subsequent hate crime. Trans people and non-binary people have always existed. They will exist in spite of the vitriol, scapegoating and legislation. To any trans person listening, I want to address you directly. I see you, I stand with you and I respect you. I hope that in the face of this hardship, we can support you, and that we do much better for you in law.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I am grateful to be able to speak in the debate secured by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), which is particularly important in Hate Crime Awareness Week. His contribution was eloquent and moving, and some of the things he said should horrify us. We should be shocked to the core by the things that he shared, and we should all have pause for thought. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) also should have made us all think very deeply about the situation that our society faces.
The statistics shared by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) tell us about the huge increase in hate crime. She spoke about the increase in hate crime in relation to the transgender community, and we have heard clearly from a number of Members about how significant and troubling that is.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) correctly made a point about how frightening the increase in hate crime is. That is all very well but, as he said, it is not the full story, because we know that that crime is under-represented. We also know that it is significantly on the increase, not just here but around the world. That is a particular challenge when we think of the policies of the UK Government, who are not at all minded to consider that fact when they move people around the globe without thinking about the consequences.
It is a time of polarisation of views and positions, as is clear from the online space, if Members ever brave it. Social media companies as well as Governments have a responsibility to deal with the shocking and disgraceful commentary on social media. Fundamentally, no one’s identity should be up for debate. No point of view can possibly excuse hate crime. As politicians, we need to take some responsibility here. Are we always measured and considered? I would say no, not all of us are always measured and considered. We have heard very clearly about some of the commentary coming from the Conservative conference, for instance. I think that was a point well made. Culture wars should never be a political strategy. We should all call it out and be confident in doing so. We need to get a grip on the hostile language that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) spoke about, because we know very well that it does embolden people to commit hate crimes against the LGBT community, who are just trying to live their lives, after all.
It is timely for us to point out how utterly unacceptable and troubling it is that we also see an uptick in other kinds of hate crime. Antisemitic and Islamophobic hate crimes are increasing at the moment. Whatever angle we look at this from, it is devastating to the LGBT community. It is damaging and erosive to all our communities. Everyone suffers when we accept this shocking attack on people’s identities. It is an unfortunate instinct of the UK Government to try to move along and pretend that this is not happening.
I wonder whether the Minister is able to answer the written question I submitted, which remains unanswered, about the draft Bill on banning conversion therapy. It is overdue, and I wonder if it is overdue because the Government do not want to answer it as they have no intention of following through on their previous commitments. That matters because that in itself has implications for hate crime and the way that people will be treated. As a useful political wedge for those who wish to seek division it might work, but we need to hear commitments here from the UK Government and the Minister that proper action will be taken to deliver a proper ban on conversion therapy, and that there is a commitment to recognising and understanding the impact on LGBT communities of hate crime.
I will conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for saying very eloquently that the LGBT community are not our enemy; they are not a threat. I think that is a sensible point to conclude on, because he is right. It is time for us all here to say, “Enough,” and call it out.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mrs Cummins. I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this debate, which has been so well attended. When I was shadow Public Health Minister, I had the chance to collaborate with him on his vital work to end the transmission of HIV. His efforts there have been remarkable, and he has set the tone and brought the same kind of spirit to today’s debate. He talked about the stark and horrific reality of hate crime, which should act as a call to action. He made crucial points about reference, which were echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake). We as leaders have a real responsibility in this space.
The debate has been important. I am particularly grateful to colleagues who were able to talk about their personal experiences. People assume that as parliamentarians we are confident in always sharing what can be very deep parts of our personality, but it really has enriched the debate, and I am exceptionally grateful for that. My hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) made really important points about under-reporting. Our efforts today and the leadership we show from this place—we must hear that from the Minister, and I will have some ideas myself—are the way to drive up reporting and build confidence. We know for too many people that confidence is not there at the moment.
I want to cover the point from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). First, to be very clear, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) has a very diverse constituency in Manchester and represents all her constituents, no matter their background—political or otherwise. That T-shirt is not an act of hate. Similarly, we would not interpret condoms at Tory party conferences that say, “Labour isn’t working, but this condom will (*99% of the time)”, as such. We take it in the spirit in which it was meant. I would be saddened if it was not taken in the spirit in which it was meant. I want to put that on the record.
In recent years we have seen incidents of hate crime rise significantly. Hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation have risen by almost 500% over the last decade. Crimes targeting transgender identity are up by 1,000%. We would expect to see some increase as we have, as a whole society, pushed to improve reporting, but even from isolating the data to the recent past four years—2018 to 2022—hate crime on the basis of sexual orientation is up by 41% and on the basis of gender identity by 56%. There is a problem here, and reporting alone cannot explain it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, there are changes in all our communities.
LGBT+ people must be treated fairly, with dignity and with respect. As leaders in this place, our commitment is to treat these issues with sensitivity, rather than to stoke division and pit people against each other. We should be proud of our record as a tolerant country. We should be proud of our progress on equality. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) said, we should be overjoyed that we have the most out LGBT+ Members of Parliament of any legislative body in the world. But that progress is not inevitable. We need to hear the Government’s plan to reverse this trend in hate crime and to reverse how LGBT+ people feel today.
Where the Government will not step forward, we stand ready. We are proud that the previous Labour Government did more to advance LGBT+ equality than any in history and, if given the chance, the next will break new ground in this space, too. We would introduce a full and immediate trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy, protecting legitimate talking therapies but closing any consent loopholes that are put in the statute book in the meantime.
We will also strengthen and equalise the law so that anti-LGBT+ and disability hate crimes are treated as aggravated offences. In doing so, we would accept the Law Commission’s recommendations that the aggravated offences regime be extended across five protected characteristics: race, religion, sexual identity, transgender identity and disability. That will ensure that anyone who falls victim to hate crime is treated equally under the law and that the perpetrators of anti-LGBT+ and disability hate can no longer dodge longer sentences. Those commitments sit alongside our broader, crucial pledges to put 13,000 neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers back on our streets and embedded in our communities, so that they can build local relationships to combat hate crime and deter it through their visible presence.
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend will be aware of the horrific attack at the Two Brewers in my constituency of Vauxhall on Sunday 13 August. I commend the organisation for working with the police: the perpetrator was caught a month later and he is still on remand. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more police officers across all our communities to ensure that anyone committing these heinous attacks will feel the full weight of the law?
Alex Norris
Absolutely. We want to send a very strong signal that, under a future Labour Government, there would be 13,000 extra staff, compared with the 10,000 fewer we have at the moment, to take back our streets so that those who think they can break the law with impunity find out that they no longer can.
There is a significant point about charging. Our charging commission, chaired by former Victims’ Commissioner Dame Vera Baird, will be providing recommendations on raising the scandalously low charge rates that are so damaging to our justice system and are letting criminals off the hook. This is a plan to reverse a legacy of decline. We are determined to turn this situation around, and to make our streets safe with a police and justice system that is fit for the future and that the LGBT+ community can trust to combat hate crime and bring the perpetrators of it to justice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this debate. It was abundantly clear throughout his remarks that this subject is of significance to him. He relayed his thoughts and personal experiences and, like those of other Members who have contributed to the debate, they were thought-provoking and I thank him for them.
Although the debate is specifically about hate crimes that target the LGBT community, I want to echo the remarks that the Prime Minister made on Monday. He mentioned that hate crime takes various forms and that we must look at the antisemitism of the past few days. We must stand not only with our Jewish community, but with our British Muslim community, too. We stand with both communities. I echo those remarks very firmly because they are important, and I want to lower the temperature of the debate. These matters are felt strongly not only by Members present, but by those in our communities. It does not help when intemperate language is used.
The Government are clear that there is no place for hate in our society. It does not reflect who we are: modern Britain. We are beyond that, but we still have room for improvement. Given the personal nature of these abhorrent crimes, I know how distressing they can be. I have heard some of the experiences of Members from across the House and the political divide. They are really thought-provoking. These things we are joined together on. I know how distressing these crimes are, as has been mentioned, for victims, their families, friends and the wider community. I therefore want to make it clear that any form of hate crime is unacceptable. The Government firmly believe that everyone should be able to lead their life free from discrimination, prejudice and hate. That is precisely why we are tackling all forms of hate crime, not lifting one or two above the other. They are all important to me.
One thing I was impressed with when I came into the House was just how these issues can be debated and how my own party has come so far in proposing marriage that had previously been unacceptable and representing the community. We are still world-leading; I think it is at our peril that we say we are not. There is always more to do, but we must not be too hysterical in language. That provides difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) pointed that out: it can be misused, and it should not be. We should be together on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Miss Dines
I will carry on a little and then give way. A lot of specific questions were raised, and I want to answer them. I will then give way.
The UK has a proud history of protecting and promoting LGBT rights and the Government are committed to preserving that record. We are clear that victims of hate crime should be supported and the cowards who commit those hateful attacks should be brought to justice. I want to mention that I was delighted to see the Minister for Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), here. That shows the important work that he has been doing and I know through cross-departmental ministerial meetings that he is working incredibly hard on this. I too have spoken to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the deputy commissioner on these issues as safeguarding Minister. They are taken very seriously.
Whatever some Opposition Members may say, I ask them to consider that we still have one of the world’s most comprehensive and robust legislative frameworks for hate crime. Indeed, in 2018 the Government asked the Law Commission to conduct a review of the coverage and approach of hate crime legislation in England and Wales. The Law Commission provided a very long, detailed and considered report. We are grateful for those detailed considerations and for the work put into that. We have responded to and accepted one of the recommendations in that report and will respond to the remaining recommendations shortly.
On online offending, it is evident that in modern life intemperate and illegal remarks can be whipped up online. We continue to work to ensure that people are protected against criminal activity, including threatening behaviour both on and offline. In my work with the National Crime Agency and various police forces, I have found a high level of commitment to improving this arena. There are people doing some very good work, and we must not forget that.
We have robust legislation in place to deal with threatening and abusive behaviour or behaviour that is intended to or is likely to stir up hatred. That applies whether it takes place here, in the wider world, or online. Further to that, we are making hate crime a priority offence in the Online Safety Bill, which, as hon. Members will be aware, has recently completed its passage through Parliament and is awaiting Royal Assent. There are legal duties of care under which technology companies will need to prevent, identify and remove illegal content and activity online. That means that less illegal content, including content that incites hate on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation, will appear online and that when it does it will be removed quickly.
The Government have also worked closely to fund True Vision, which is just part of our commitment in this area, for online hate crime reporting. The portal is designed so that victims of all sorts of hate crime do not have to visit a police station to report. We also continue to fund the national online hate crime hub, which is a central capability designed to support individual local police forces in dealing with online hate crime. The hub provides expert advice to police forces to support them in investigating these despicable offences.
There is much other work being done by the Government to broaden education, such as providing more than £3 million in funding between August 2021 and March 2024 to five anti-bullying organisations. There is much work being done, too, in schools to tackle this sort of hate crime. Also, the curriculum in schools is drafted in a way that will promote greater understanding in the field. It would not be fair to characterise the Government as somehow not being engaged and working in this field.
Miss Dines
I want to go on to the issue of conversion practices, if I may; I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s patience. The Government have made it clear that conversion practices are abhorrent and have no place in our society. We are grateful to those who have responded to our consultation, which was very wide and well thought-out, and my ministerial colleagues will set out further details on that in due course. I cannot give a timeframe.
Peter Gibson
We have been promised “very soon” since January this year. Does the Minister have an update on specific dates?
Miss Dines
As a junior Minister, I have learned that “very soon” is quite an interesting phrase. All I can say is that hopefully we will have some news very soon.
Miss Dines
I will address one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. He asked whether the Government will end the disparity between the different forms of hate crime, and I know he feels strongly about this issue. It is something that the Law Commission has considered in its recent report. We are considering that further and, again, will have more details shortly.
The Government’s has a proud record on LGBT rights. We have one of the most comprehensive and robust legislative frameworks, but the work on the HIV action plan—
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. It is up to the Minister whether to give way.
Miss Dines
I want to mention and praise the work of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth on the HIV action plan. We have announced an ambitious target to end new HIV cases by 2030, which represents a lot of work done by the defence community and the UK armed forces. A lot of work has been done there. I have mentioned the ban on conversion therapy, to which we are committed and which was raised by Members in the debate.
The rise in hate crime statistics has been mentioned. At first glance, it is very alarming. The good news is that, generally, hate crimes are on a downward trajectory. However, specific hate crimes, such as those targeted at LGBT people, are on the rise. There has been a characterisation of the figures as given, so I will go through the actual statistics. As hon. Members have said, transgender identity hate crimes have risen by 11%—from 4,262 to 4,732. That is the highest number since the statistics began in the year ending in March 2012, so it is of concern. However, it would be wrong to say that that has been prompted by any particular politician. The report says:
“Transgender issues have been heavily discussed by politicians, the media and on social media over the last year, which may have led to an increase in these offences, or more awareness in the police in the identification and recording of these crimes.”
When we look at statistics, we need to look at the independent assessor, who did not say that, in isolation, the rise in such hate crimes is because politicians are talking about it. It is because this issue is discussed online and in the media. More importantly—I have witnessed this myself—police officers are now more likely to understand it and be able to report it than they were two, three, four or five years ago. Although it is alarming that hate crime in this field has risen by 11%, in some ways we must look for the positive, which is that more people are coming forward.
Miss Dines
I just want to make this point: more people are coming forward, which is good news that I welcome. More people are reporting this sort of crime. [Interruption.]
Miss Dines
I will make a concluding point. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) made some very important points, and I can speak to him afterwards—
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Mrs Cummins. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members present today. I particularly thank Opposition Members, but I also want to thank Conservative colleagues for having the courage to speak up on these issues publicly and within their own party.
I am sorry to say that the Minister has shown how completely out of touch she and the Government are with the lived experience of LGBT+ people. To use words such as “hysterical” when we are talking about such serious issues is deeply disappointing. The evidence is there and is very clear. It is unequivocal: hate crime is up, people’s experiences are horrific and we have slipped down the rankings. The question is: when will she and the Government do something about this, rather than just talking and offering warm words?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of hate crime against the LGBT+ community.
Written Statement
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Position, Navigation and Timing Resilience: Government Policy Framework
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (George Freeman)
Position, navigation and timing services are vital for the UK economy, Critical national infrastructure sectors and wider society. Nearly all PNT services in the UK are provided by global navigation satellite systems, including the US global positioning system (GPS).
In the 2021 integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy the Government committed to strengthen the resilience of the PNT services on which our CNI and economy depend. The loss of PNT services also features in the 2023 national risk register, the external version of the national security risk assessment (NSRA), which is the Government’s assessment of the most serious risks facing the UK.
I can today announce a Government policy framework for greater PNT resilience to meet this commitment in the Integrated Review.
National PNT Office: establish a National PNT Office in the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology—to improve resilience and drive growth with responsibility for PNT policy, co-ordination, and delivery.
PNT crisis plan: retain and update a cross-Government PNT crisis plan to be activated if GNSS-provided PNT is lost and identify and implement short term mitigations.
National timing centre: develop a proposal for a national timing centre—to provide resilient, terrestrial, sovereign, and high-quality timing for the UK (UTC(NPL)), including sovereign components and optical clocks.
“MOD Time”: develop a proposal for “MOD time” creating deeper resilience through a system of last resort and use NTC-provided timing to support MOD.
eLORAN: develop a proposal for a resilient, terrestrial, and sovereign enhanced long-range navigation (eLORAN) system to provide back-up position and navigation.
Infrastructure resilience: roll out resilient GNSS receiver chips, develop holdover clocks, and consider options for legislation on CNI sectors to require minimum resilient PNT.
UK SBAS: develop a proposal for a UK precise point positioning satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS-PPP) to replace the UK’s use of the European geostationary navigation overlay service (EGNOS), monitor GNSS and enable GNSS-dependent high accuracy position for autonomous and precision uses.
PNT skills: explore options for centres for doctoral training in timing and PNT and review PNT skills, education, and training for long term sovereign PNT capability.
Growth policy: develop a PNT growth policy, including R and D programmes, standards and testing, to drive innovation for PNT based productivity.
Next generation PNT: deploy existing R and D funding into a UK quantum navigator and investigate possible options for a UK sovereign regional satellite system.
This policy framework builds on the previous work in Government on PNT, including the 2018 Blackett report, “Satellite-derived Time and Position: A Study of Critical Dependencies” and the work of the UK Space Agency’s space-based PNT programme, which started in October 2020. The policy framework was produced by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which worked with the lead Government Departments responsible for the CNI sectors in the UK to develop this agreed cross-Government position on national PNT resilience. Experts on PNT, both within and outside Government, and representatives of the PNT industry were involved with and consulted as part of the work to develop this policy framework.
This policy framework sets out, for the first time, what Government plan to do to improve the resilience of PNT services and support the economic opportunities that they enable. For those actions that require additional spending commitments, the newly established National PNT Office in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, point 1 of the policy framework, will work with other Government Departments over the coming months to develop business cases for this extra resource for consideration at the next spending round.
This PNT policy framework also supports the March 2023 UK science and technology framework and the UK becoming a science and technology superpower by 2030. It will lead to strategic advantage for the UK, create opportunities for greater international collaboration on PNT resilience, lead to greater investment in R and D and build PNT skills in the UK workforce.
As a first step to taking forward this policy framework I can also announce today that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology reallocated £14 million of existing funding at the end of the last financial year to the National Physical Laboratory’s national timing centre research and development programme, which will now run until March 2025. This programme is the precursor to, and key building block of, developing a national timing centre, as outlined at point 3 of the policy framework.
The deployment of existing R and D funding into UK quantum navigation, in point 10 of the policy framework, is part of funding announced previously. This includes £8 million to fund 12 projects exploring quantum technologies for PNT that I announced during London Tech Week in June 2023, and a further £8.8 million for a specific quantum navigation project.
The UK Space Agency has also published today two documents from their space-based PNT programme: a summary of the technical concepts developed under the programme and an updated report on the economic impact to the UK of a disruption to global navigation satellite systems. I am placing a copy of both documents in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1073]
Grand Committee
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung.
Restoration and Renewal: Annual Progress Report
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Grand Committee takes note of the report from the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons and the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords, Restoration and Renewal: Annual Progress Report 2023 (HC Paper 1603).
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, this is the first time under the new governance arrangements for the R&R programme that a debate on the annual progress report has taken place.
As noble Lords will recall, following the publication of indicative costs and timetables by the sponsor body in early 2022 and concerns that the previous governance structure operated in a way that was too distant from parliamentarians, the commissions of both Houses jointly proposed that a new mandate and governance structure be established to continue work on the programme and to consider a broader range of options for the works. Both Houses agreed to the proposed new mandate in July 2022, which brought the governance of the programme back into Parliament.
The new mandate established a two-tier governance structure which is closer to parliamentarians. The first tier is the Client Board and comprises the two House commissions, chaired jointly by the Lord Speaker and Mr Speaker, and makes the critical strategic choices and recommendations to both Houses regarding the works.
The second tier is the programme board: a joint board of the two Houses with delegated authority from the client board which has conducted much of the heavy lifting for the programme in recent months. The programme board consists of parliamentary Members from both Houses, all of whom from the House of Lords I am very pleased to see here in the Moses Room today: the noble Lords, Lord Collins of Highbury, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, and the programme board vice-chair, the noble Lord, Lord Morse. The programme board also consists of the clerks of each House and four external members who bring outside expertise from major and complex projects.
The R&R client team, a joint department of Parliament, was established at the beginning of this year to bring the oversight function for the programme in-house from the former sponsor body. The client team delivers expert programme capabilities, works closely with in-house teams and is enhancing engagement with Members of both Houses.
As part of the recent changes to the programme structure and mandate, the statutory responsibilities and other functions of the sponsor body transferred to the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the clerks of each House, acting jointly. The independent R&R delivery authority, which the client team is responsible for instructing on behalf of Parliament, continues its work under the new governance arrangements.
The two House commissions identified four priority areas for the works: fire safety and protection, building services, asbestos and building fabric conservation. The House commissions also established parameters to guide the works in the current development phase, calling for a wider range of options and different levels of ambition to be considered, to ensure maximum value for money. This sits within wider principles for the programme, which include ensuring a more integrated and cohesive approach between the R&R works and other critical works on the Parliamentary Estate.
In recent months, the delivery authority has been working at pace to provide the programme board with a suite of options on the levels of ambition for the programme and how the works could be delivered, which the programme board was tasked to shortlist. After careful consideration, the programme board recommended two shortlisted options, down from a longlist of 36, to the R&R client board. These two shortlisted options were endorsed by the client board in July. This means that the client board remains on track to present the shortlist to both Houses later this year in the forthcoming report on the R&R strategic case. The two shortlisted options comprise two different ways of delivering the programme but target the same outcome level—in other words, they both have the same level of ambition.
Regarding the level of ambition, the programme board considered carefully the benefits and draw- backs of six possible outcome levels, and recommended outcome level 4 of 5, with level 5 being the highest. This consideration included analysis of the risks and benefits, including the timescales and costs for the programme. The outcome level recommended will deliver improvements to the priority areas of fire safety and protection, mechanical, electrical and other services, health and safety, and building fabric conservation. It will also provide enhanced security protection measures, improve visitor access, significantly increase step-free access and provide broader accessibility improvements to support and facilitate the participation of Members and the experience of visitors to Parliament.
On the delivery of the programme, the client board agreed to recommend two options for further detailed design work and analysis, with the same outcome level, not least to meet the spirit of the new mandate for R&R agreed by both Houses last year, which was informed by engagement with Members of both Houses. The client board will propose that further work be undertaken on one “full decant” option, where both Houses move out of the Palace at the same time, with one House, likely to be the Commons, returning to the Palace before the works are completed. In the other option, the House of Commons Chamber and essential support services would maintain a “continued presence” in varying locations in the Palace during the works, and the House of Lords would move out of the Palace.
I emphasise that both options will require some form of temporary accommodation. The client board has endorsed that the QEII conference centre is the preferred decant location for the House of Lords and agreed that the northern estate—either Portcullis House or Richmond House—should be explored further as the location for any decant of the House of Commons.
Both Houses are expected to have the opportunity to debate the strategic case before the end of this year, and both will be invited to endorse that further detailed work be undertaken on the two shortlisted options. Endorsement of further work will enable the development of fully costed proposals to support a decision by both Houses regarding the preferred option for delivery of the works, as required by the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act.
It is expected that the costed proposals will be presented to the Houses in 2025, subject to the Houses agreeing the strategic case later this year. Further work on the shortlisted options will ensure that the costed proposals required under the Act are as taut, realistic and affordable as they can be. Having costed proposals for both shortlisted options will ensure that both Houses will be able to make an informed, evidence-based and robust decision regarding the best way forward for the programme, recognising our role as custodians of this historic building for future generations.
When the strategic case report is published towards the end of next month, an extensive programme of communications and engagement with Members will be undertaken ahead of the debates. Of course, the forthcoming decision on the strategic case for both Houses is supported by a significant amount of continuing work, which is set out in the 2023 annual report—the focus of today’s debate.
I will not repeat all of the work set out in the annual report, but I will highlight some notable achievements of the programme, in addition to the significant work undertaken to establish the new governance structure and client team. There is now greater alignment between in-house teams and the delivery authority to ensure that we maintain the safety and services of Parliament and deliver value for money. To that end, parliamentary teams are getting on with works, including internal projects such as the safety-critical Victoria Tower external works. This is in line with the new mandate agreed by both Houses last year.
Over 7,500 hours of surveys were conducted during the 2022-23 annual year. This has developed our understanding of the condition of the Palace. Many further hours of surveys have been conducted over the recent Summer and Conference Recesses. This work, which involves significant collaboration between the delivery authority, parliamentary teams and contractors, will continue to inform development of detailed costings and schedules as the programme moves forward.
Significant work engaging Members of both Houses and domestic committees has informed decisions taken by the programme and client boards so far. There is further engagement planned for the months ahead to support the publication of the strategic case and work on temporary accommodation. This demonstrates the objective set out in the new mandate to engage Members more comprehensively and ensure that the R&R programme is closer to parliamentarians.
Tours of the Palace basement and the historic Cloister Court continue to be made available to Members. These tours provide a fascinating insight into the history of the Palace, but I found from my visit a troubling reminder of the decay that the Palace faces and the necessity to progress the programme as swiftly as possible. So I do recommend to those noble Lords who have not signed up to a tour that they do so. It is illuminating, as I say, but it also reveals some of the rich and lesser- seen heritage of which we are custodians.
UK-wide engagement with existing and potential suppliers, in partnership with the British Chambers of Commerce, continued in 2023 following the governance changes. This has included UK-wide visits to promote the programme and discussions with more than 100 businesses about potential opportunities to be involved in the restoration work, demonstrating that benefits of the programme should be felt across the United Kingdom. The heritage and collections team will continue to develop plans to ensure that the collections are safe when the restoration works commence.
The annual report sets out the financial performance for the R&R programme overall, including the costs of the client team and the independent delivery authority. Expenditure for both bodies is scrutinised by various means with the client team, as a joint parliamentary department funded by both Houses, subject to the scrutiny processes faced by the budgets of both Houses’ administrations. The annual estimate for the independent delivery authority is scrutinised by the client team, the programme board—including a sub-board chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Morse, which undertakes detailed scrutiny—the client board and, finally, the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission before it is laid in the House of Commons.
I will end my opening remarks with what I am confident are shared sentiments among all noble Lords present and beyond. We all know how privileged we are to work in the Palace of Westminster. It is, after all, the heart of our parliamentary democracy, a historic royal Palace and a building recognised the world over. We in our generation have a shared responsibility as custodians of this much-admired building and it is clearly an imperative that we preserve it for future generations.
I would be the first to accept—these are my words—the profound sense of frustration at times as to the progress of the R&R programme. I hope that the establishment of the new governance structure, the forthcoming debate on the strategic case and the annual report that is before the Grand Committee today can give noble Lords somewhat greater confidence, because we are clearly all going to have to play our part in the restoration and renewal of this iconic building. I beg to move.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I have had the privilege of serving on many of your Lordships’ committees in the last 10 years, but I honestly believe that the committee programme board on which I now sit is by far the most important that I have sat on. It is for this reason. While most of our committees make recommendations to the Government—who may or may not choose to follow them; more often than not, they do not—on this occasion we will bring forward the recommendations to the client board. The recommendations will require Parliament to take an executive decision itself; that is very unusual, but it is a huge responsibility for parliamentarians to take a decision about their own building.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, this has been going on for a long time—the can has been pushed down the road for a long time—so, when I was asked to go on the programme board, I did so with a great deal of trepidation, because I thought, “This could be Groundhog Day all over again”. I asked myself whether we would achieve anything. The answer is: we have—much to my surprise. How have we done that? Without getting drawn into the boring structural description of governance, it has been the people on, and supporting, the programme board who have done this. We have had a fantastic team of people helping us, including a chairman, my right honourable friend Nigel Evans, who has run the board very efficiently; a vice-chair, the noble Lord, Lord Morse, who has his beady eye, as befits any former Comptroller and Auditor-General; and a tremendous team of experts.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a Division in the House. The Committee will resume at the end of the Division when everybody is back.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
I was talking about the progress that we have made and how well we have been served by the officials. We have had experts supporting the programme board, we have had objective outsiders on it, and we have had independent assessors.
When we began, we were faced with 36 options, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said. I was sceptical that we would be able to narrow them down at all, but we have—to two. We looked at the objectives that we could achieve, which ranged from keeping the building safe to making enhanced, extensive and very expensive improvements to the whole aspect of the buildings. We then had to look at what was involved with each objective. There was the cost, the different degrees of disruption that will be caused and the different degrees to which the two Houses and Chambers would have to operate from other locations, either within the Palace precincts or outside.
There was also the question of safety. This is a very tight space, so where will the workmen and women operate from? Where will they put their building resources, and where will they change, eat and do things like that? How do we get the resources and materials into the Palace precincts? There are questions of safety and making sure that the work that is done does not put people at risk—there is asbestos everywhere. There are great issues of heritage—this is a historic heritage building—and the question of security, as thousands of people work in the precincts. We had to look at all of these considerations, and, of course, we know that the unexpected will arise, as with any building development work.
The truth is that there is no clear, obvious or perfect answer. Everything involves trade-offs. It requires an acceptance that we can argue until the cows come home, but there will be no obvious perfect solution.
At some point, the options will be presented to both Houses. What has dominated much of our thinking in the programme board has been the safety of the building. This is an iconic building that is a symbol of British democracy throughout the world. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, used rather moderate language when he talked about the basement. He used the word “illuminating”. I think that it is absolutely horrifying. When you go round the basement of this place you realise the tremendous risks. People do not know where the cables, wires or pipes go. There is a real danger of something terrible happening to our building.
Every parliamentarian has a responsibility to safeguard this building, so when the decision comes to Parliament, as it will do, the most important thing is not which option Parliament chooses but that it makes a decision. Parliamentarians—Members of the other House in particular, who have to be elected—take great pride in saying to the electors, “We are capable of running the country. We are capable of doing all the things to do with health, education, transport, security and defence”. If you say that you can run the country, the big question is: can you run this building? It will be a real responsibility. There will be a crunch time, and it will test Parliament, but it will have to take that decision.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I have nothing but admiration for those, past and present, who serve on what is now the programme board, and those who are supporting, advising and delivering. This is a nightmare of a project, and everyone who has been involved with it deserves a medal. Mine would be a very small one for serving on the joint scrutiny committee for the 2019 Act. When I was asked by the Whips to go on it, I thought that it would probably be the most boring exercise of my political life. It turned out to be anything but. I became engaged with the wider issues that the noble Lord just referred to, as did the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner. I reinforce the point that decisions have to be made and clarity has to be brought forward. We have an obligation to those who come after us to get this right.
I shall be brief because, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, the options will be put before the two Houses and there will be the opportunity to debate. If I may say so, I feel that we in Committee this afternoon are like a fly on an elephant’s bottom—we are nibbling away at the issues—but I will repeat what I have said on previous occasions, and I will keep at it until we get a solution.
Throughout my political life, I have not personally dealt substantially with disability issues, although for a time I was the Secretary of State who oversaw what was then the operation of the DDA and the DRC, which we introduced under my ministerial team, but over the last four years I have got engaged on a bit of a mission. In 2019, when the scrutiny committee’s report was published and the Act was taken through, I became aware of the lack of engagement with access for people with disabilities. This does not affect me; I am very fortunate—there are very few places in the Palace of Westminster that I could not get into, although I am open for the challenge at some point—but many other people have real challenges. It is not that they might not eventually get to their destination. It is the means of getting there—the indignity and difficulty, things which those who do not experience them would not put up with for a moment.
In the original Bill, there was a commitment to “access to” the Palace of Westminster. I was interested in the wording used by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, in highlighting the priorities that the programme board and the two options will offer us, because step-free access into the Palace of Westminster is not the major issue. The major issue, which was missed by the House of Commons and in drafting the legislation, was access within the Palace of Westminster. After great discussion and enormous help from the then Ministers, we in this House amended the legislation to take account of that rather important element. In other words, we listened to people who had challenges and we were prepared to respond to them.
In the Act of Parliament, which still remains, Section 2 concerns the parliamentary works and in its subsection (5)(e)—I am sorry to do this to noble Lords—the amendment that was carried was to ensure that
“(i) any place in which either House of Parliament is located while the Parliamentary building works are carried out, and (ii) (after completion of those works) all parts of the Palace of Westminster used by people working in it or open to people visiting it, are accessible to people with disabilities”.
When we debated this, it was absolutely clear that we did not mean that people had to get into the towers and turrets at the very top—we discussed it on the Floor of the House—but when, in a recent session, I learned that we were talking about perhaps two-thirds of the Palace of Westminster being accessible, noble Lords can understand that I had a reaction.
An Act of Parliament is an Act of Parliament, and whether the wording was incorrect or not, it stated that
“all parts of the Palace of Westminster”
would be accessible, with an understanding of the trade-offs that the noble Lord has just referred to, where most people would use common sense. Where a particular element of the Palace was not used by those working in it or needed to be accessible to those visiting, we would use a bit of common sense. I say now that unless 95% of the Palace of Westminster is accessible to disabled people, we will have committed a historic mistake. This is the opportunity to put things right, to learn from Mr Barry’s War, which is still worth reading, and to learn how not to do things as well as how to do them.
I hope the two options, even at this late stage, will acknowledge what the Act of Parliament says. I know that the Government, particularly during the Boris Johnson period, thought that Acts of Parliament were “take it or leave it” and not mandatory, but we are not in that position anymore. If Parliament does not respect its own Act, who else will?
I am putting on the table the need to try to have a bit of common sense; we need to get this right. To do so, we need one more thing. When we talk about the total amounts under the two options that will be brought forward—the total sums necessary to do the work properly—we must break it down over the total period of the works to be carried out to the completion and return of both the Commons and the Lords to the Palace. If we do not do that, we will do ourselves and the public a great injustice, because we will frighten ourselves to death. I have heard people ask, again and again over the last three or four years, “On the back of austerity, the difficulty that people are facing and the tightness of public expenditure, how can we possibly spend whatever sum in the billions you want to pick out of the air?”. It does not work like that; we are talking about a very long period over which this money will be spent. I put a plea in that we get that message right.
We obviously have to get the sums right, rather than have the doubling of costs that we have seen in major schemes for many years, but let us try not to frighten ourselves to death with the amounts of money which will be crucial to getting this right for, I hope, centuries. We owe the future an obligation, which we are actually better at in this House, because we choose when we go—or the Lord chooses when we go—whereas, down the road, they are frightened stiff of what might happen and whether they will get the blame for it, and therefore whether to do a meet-and-mend job. Today, can we please take this back to the programme board: I commend the Act of Parliament, but I commend a bit of common sense as well.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I will try, first, not to repeat too much of what noble Lords have already heard, if that is possible, and, secondly, take a financial view of the project, since that may be more of a minority sport than one might think.
First, in my view, the new governance structure has worked well to date. The programme board, of which Nigel Evans is chair and I am deputy chair, has worked hard over five months to identify a shortlist of options for restoration and renewal and a way forward for the programme. The programme remains on track to deliver the strategic case for both Houses before the end of this year. This will not be the final decision; it will instead seek the two Houses’ endorsement of the shortlist.
The important point, as the Committee has already heard, is that in that shortlist there is one approach that involves a full decant of both Houses and another that involves only a partial decant and something described as a “continued presence”—but, as noble Lords will hear a bit later, it will not be a “continued presence” for the House of Lords. We will come to the opportunity to vote on that. Before we do, there will be work on detailed proposals and costs over the next year, which will be brought back to the Houses for a final decision, probably in 2025.
The programme board asked me to chair a sub-board, with a particular focus on finance and cost. Over the course of the next year, the sub-board will not only look rigorously at the delivery authority’s budget, which it did last year, but look more closely at the underlying cost assumptions on which the programme is to be costed. More work needs to be done on costs, including benchmarking the cost for the programme against similar restoration programmes of this scale. Achieving value for money has been a central theme running through the programme board’s discussions, as has the need to ensure continued in-depth engagement with Members of both Houses about R&R.
Let me emphasise a few points that are really important to bear in mind. First, while the strategic business case will be presented in the next few months and confirm the options to be costed in detail, setting out the shape of what is proposed, the real crunch decision will be to decide on—and commit to—one fully costed option. That is most likely, as has been said, to be taken in 2025—again, most likely after the election of a new Government and Parliament. The crunch decision will be theirs to take.
In the meantime, we need to keep costs under control, commensurate with making the requisite progress, and make sure that planning and costing for the programme as a whole are realistic and hard-headed. If a new Government decide to kick the can down the road in any way, at least some of the costs being incurred now may prove abortive, depending, of course, in what direction the can travels. We need to keep ourselves on top of these costs and be ready to account for them in that context, as well as in the context of moving forward successfully. It is important for your Lordships to bear in mind that both the options being evaluated assume that the House of Lords will decant to the QEII conference centre for not less than 10 years, so when we describe this as temporary accommodation your Lordships need to think carefully about what “temporary” means.
Secondly, assuming that the crunch decision is to go ahead, and I hope that it will, there will of course be risks of time and cost slippage to be managed. With so many uncertainties inherent in a project involving such a complex historic estate, I believe some slippage is highly likely. We need to plan to keep on the pressure for value for money even if slippage occurs. That can be done but it requires considerable work.
What is avoidable is what I will describe as scope creep or special pleading, where there are constant attempts by interested parties to interfere in the plans and keep modifying them to achieve change that might improve their particular facilities. I saw this very radically in the design of the headquarters of the United Nations, which went wildly over cost as a result. Setting a point at which there will be no further modifications in the plans and defending that strongly, so that there really is a design freeze, will be most important.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I had not put my name down for this debate but I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord is taking a financial view of all this. Does he agree that this project is taking place at a time of great financial stringency and that the other place is going to be trying to work out how, in the short to medium term, its Members are going to make it acceptable to their electorates? If that is the case, does he also agree that we may have to accept a longer period of renewal that may come with a partial decant, even if the discounted present value over the whole life of the project turns out to be higher?
Lord Morse (CB)
In a way, the noble Lord is asking me to answer a hypothetical question, but if a new Government appear and the first thing they are asked for, or an early decision they have to make, is to commit to a very large sum of money on this project, it will take a certain amount of courage to go ahead with it. It would be the right thing to do but it will take a certain amount of courage. I thank him for that intervention.
To sum up, my comment is “Good progress so far”. I do not say that lightly. I genuinely think that the client board, the programme board and the delivery authority have all performed well so far, but it has to be said that the big risks, including the risk to public value and the challenges, are in the future of this programme. We have done well but we have not started climbing the steeper mountains yet, so I wish to record my support for the progress report.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when I put my name down to speak in this debate the general reaction was “Why? It has all been said before and it’s going nowhere fast”. I do not think that is fair for the project we have in front of us. We are on the cusp of getting to the point where we make a decision. However, the problems that have already been referred to in this debate are the facts that not everybody will agree with that decision, nobody wants it on their watch, as was referred to in the last exchange, nobody wants to take on that degree of expenditure, nobody wants to be the one who actually takes that risk, and nobody wants to be the one who says, “Oh, you can’t have your guests to tea within the Palace of Westminster”. At certain times it does go on at that petty level. However, we have to make that decision soon.
Purely by chance, the director of facilities was talking to my political group earlier today. I asked him, because I was speaking in this debate, what I should say. He said, “Oh well, don’t worry about it. We’ve been told we’ve got to keep the place going until 2029”. So we have 10 years’ delay. I have been here an awfully long time—getting on for 40 years. When I first got here I was told about how difficult it was to maintain the place because it was in constant use, you never had enough time, there were always problems going on, and work was never finished. This has been true. It has merely morphed into the fact that we now effectively need a total refit.
Certain documents put why we should do it in context. The first paragraph of the summary of the Commons Public Accounts Committee’s report Restoration & Renewal of the Palace of Westminster – 2023 Recall finishes
“there is a real and rising risk that a catastrophic event will destroy the Palace before it is ever repaired and restored”.
That is accompanied by a risk to everybody who is anywhere near the Palace. The risk that we are taking because of finance puts people and their historic building at risk. Whatever is said about the construction of this Palace, it is a Victorian building that is seen as being the centre of London. Consider what it is competing with. It is competing with the Tower of London and the great gothic cathedrals. This building and Big Ben are the outline that defines the centre of London. If we allow it to be at risk or to be destroyed, we are taking a huge risk to the presence of this nation. We cannot do it.
There is also the fact that there are people in the Palace. If we do not do something soon we will build up that risk and effectively guarantee that something bad happens. We just are. It is just a matter of how bad and when. It costs £2 million a week to do nothing. Try to sell that on the doorstep. It costs £2 million a week, there are people in the Palace and it is dangerous. If we cannot do something with that and if the political courage is not there, we should give up and go home.
There are other objections, such as, “Would it not be dreadful if you made a speech on something in a Parliament that was not in the Palace of Westminster?” You are affecting laws—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, just pointed out how important they are, or should be—that will be there for the foreseeable future and change the way people live. If you think it matters whether you make them here or 300 yards away, give up. You do not understand what your job is, in my opinion.
All I would say to everyone in this Committee is: make that decision. Get on with it. It will not be quick. It will be a difficult argument, but you have a counter. This is something we have put off for far too long. We are putting people’s lives in danger and risking the building. Ultimately, and probably most importantly to many politicians, you are making yourselves look absurd.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I have come today mainly to listen and learn, but I think one particular issue that was referred to needs to be given more consideration. There is a physical timetable for when the plan will be done and when the work will start, but there is a parallel timetable of politics, and how the two fit together will be crucial in determining the success or otherwise of this process.
We should thank the board for its work: it is taking things forward, and we will make a decision. The report goes only as far as 2024, but we have been told today that a decision will be made in 2025. Of course, that will be the new Parliament. The big scary numbers will become known at the end of this year or the beginning of next year, so they are bound to be issues within the next general election campaign. People will be aware of these big scary numbers. I was at a bicameral meeting of the Commons Finance Committee yesterday, and we discussed these issues and heard figures, which are big and scary, whatever happens. So they will be part of the debate in the run-up to the election.
As I understand it, the new Parliament will have to take a decision about which option to go for, but we were told yesterday that, for planning purposes, it is assumed that nothing fundamental will happen with the project until 2029. Preparation work will be done and it may be that a lot more investigation is required, but it will not actually start until then, which—by coincidence—will be just after the following election. I am making the working assumption that Labour will be elected to government with a substantial majority and will be seeking re-election in 2029, just at the time when the project will be fully manifest. If you are saying that it will then have sufficient momentum that no one will dare to stop it, I point to HS2, which was cancelled despite having momentum, legislation and substantial support, as quoted by the Government.
So there is a political timetable happening at the same time, and it and the building timetable have to be synchronised. As I say, the numbers are scary and will be a political issue, so we have to build that into the timetable that we follow.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I am the president of Historic Buildings & Places, which was known as the Ancient Monuments Society for the previous 100 years. It is one of the five statutory heritage bodies that it is mandatory to consult. In a personal capacity, I am the owner of a grade 1 listed building and, as a trustee, the owner of several others.
I will stand back and make two comments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I came here rather a long time ago, at a time when HS2 was a twinkle in some engineers’ eyes. Then, the state of the building and the issues it threw up were significant matters for us to think about.
What has happened since then? We have had reports, committees, consultations, debates, resolutions, strategies, consultants and plans. At the end of the day, I am reminded of a meeting I had with the NP11, on which I sit, discussing an aspect of levelling up, when one of my fellow members said, “And then, of course, the politicians will do what they do best: talk”. We are still where we were when the noble Lord and I came into this House all those years ago—except that the building is more dangerous and it is more expensive to put it right.
We know that the Houses of Parliament burned down in 1834, but we cannot rely on the principle that lightning does not strike twice in the same place. We are looking at a potential Notre-Dame or something worse and what is needed now, as I think everybody agrees in theory, is action and not more talking. Speaking for myself, I have got to the stage where, although I have some strong views about what should or should not be done, I am not sure I care any more; it is more important to do something.
Secondly, as I alluded to, I am involved with listed buildings, of which there are many thousands in this country. The owners of those buildings have a legal obligation to look after them properly. That is quite right, but I also point out to your Lordships that it is expensive. Let us be clear: in comparison with most people—certainly many people—we in Parliament have access to almost inconceivably large sums of money to deal with our legal obligations. If we compare our predicament with those facing many other owners of listed buildings, they have much less and many of them get taxed on it.
What signal does all this delay and obfuscation send out? What sort of lead are we giving to the rest of the country in respect of this aspect of our heritage? It is worth remembering that, as I understand it, the public’s principal response to partygate was disgust that those who made the rules did not follow them themselves. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who said that there is no place here for parliamentary or parliamentarians’ exceptionalism. If the Parliament of this country cannot even sort out the problems of its own workplace, what capacity and moral authority do we have to lead and try to sort out all the other multifarious problems that we face?
I think to most outsiders we look, if I might be allowed to use the phrase, like terrible plonkers. Quite simply, we need to get on with it, not defer things, resolve problems when we have them and not try to ignore them, cut the Gordian knot if necessary and get on with doing the work. So let us stop talking— I sense that there is a real wish to do that—and do what is required. In that way, we will properly look after one of the most significant buildings in the whole world.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am not going to repeat what is in the report, but it is worth stressing, especially after the previous contribution, that we have been working hard and have achieved quite a lot. One of the frustrations is over why we cannot reach a final decision. Part of the problem is that people were not satisfied with the sort of decision that we were going to make, whether on the construction process or on the final outcome. I will address that.
Having been on the Finance Committee of the House of Lords for some period and having experienced how things have got out of hand, particularly on construction cases, I know that the biggest issue for us has been the famous terms that have been used in the past: “known knowns” and “known unknowns”, particularly when you start off and then suddenly realise something. Westminster Hall is a classic case; it is the most historic building in the world. Look at its age and how important it is to our heritage.
The other thing that I want to stress is that we have moved on from the debate that this building, as I think the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, said in the Chamber last week or the week before—before recess, anyway—is not simply a building about facilities for MPs, staff and Lords. This building represents something; it represents our values. If you show a picture of this building to anyone throughout the world, they will see not just the physical building but the values that it represents. Bearing in mind the sort of situation that we are now in in the world, that is really important.
Our ability to protect this building will be incredibly important, too. It seems like we have been going through a painful process, but we have had a complex matrix. What are the options in terms of construction, are there a range of options—moving out and staying in—and how do we evaluate them? Of course, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett said, there are also the options around what people want to end up with. The programme board has considered that matrix in a lot of detail. When we talk about the strategic case, again it seems like, “Well, why aren’t we just getting on with it?” The reason is that, when we ask people to make a decision, it will be based on fully costed options. People are making a decision at the end of the year on the strategic case, but that is not the final decision. The strategic case narrows things down so that more detailed work can go on on the costing of any final decision, so that, when we make that decision, we are very clear about those costs. The noble Lord, Lord Morse, is absolutely right: we are evaluating that at every stage of the process, and evaluating what we spend now.
It is also worth pointing out—and I have raised it in the programme board—that it costs nearly £1.5 million a week to maintain the Palace. Of course, we are doing a lot of restoration work now. One thing that I am really pleased about, and which the programme board has focused on, is how the in-house team has been working with the delivery authority to ensure that whatever we do fits so that we do not spend £200 million restoring something only to tear it down when we start the final programme. We are working collaboratively as a team, and that is really important. We are not standing still; we are not not doing anything; we are actually working quite hard. It is in the annual report, and we need to stress this to our colleagues, but thousands of hours of work have gone into the intrusive surveys, so that when we get these final costed options we will reduce the number of unknown unknowns, and we will be very clear about the work that we want to do.
The point on which I want to conclude is the temporary accommodation and the question that my noble friend Lord Blunkett raised about accessibility. I agree with him that the best people to ask about accessibility are those most affected. We should have much more survey work and include people in those discussions. However, accessibility is not just a question of the physical building. It is also about how we manage and run this building, so that we see accessibility in terms of whether we have a proper needs assessment and fully understand the range of physical capabilities that people are impacted by. Disability is not just restricted to physical capability, there are other issues. Of course, those things are not a set given over a period of time: people’s needs change, and that is something else we should build into this exercise.
I will conclude on the other point that the annual report has focused on: how we engage. I have heard so many people say that they were not consulted and I share some of the frustration, but there is a difference between consultation and engagement. We have a job of work to do, and we will ensure that people fully understand the scope of that work so that there is no shock to them when it starts. We have to move away from the idea that we are somehow in a special position to know exactly what needs to be done. I have heard MPs say that they fully understand the construction needs and stuff like that, but they do not. What we need is to have a proper system of ensuring that the full information is available.
I praise all the staff who have been involved in engagement. We need to do more about how we engage, and the responsibility falls not on them but on us. Whatever group we are a member of, whether Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem, we should express our opinions on the work we have been doing. We should not leave it until it is too late. We should certainly involve them and not be so focused on the formal consultation. We need to keep reporting back to our own groups on the work we have been doing. We have a good report and a good process, and we are getting on with the work. I know it will take a long time. As my noble friend said, the costs involved, because of the Act of Parliament, may seem horrendous, but we are talking about a 20-year period to restore this building. That is the vital thing that we need to say to other Members of the House.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I have written down “energy, passion and zest”. It seemed to me, from noble Lords’ contributions, that this is an issue which commands very considerable attention from those who have spoken. I sense that is something that so many of us feel, and not only in Parliament. I recall reading some years ago that the British people, when surveyed, said that they want this building kept and restored; they want it for future generations. We must be careful that, with the eye-watering numbers, we do not lose focus of the fact that this building means so much, as was said by the noble Lords, Lord McLoughlin and Lord Collins of Highbury, and that it resonates with people around the world. In these very ghastly times, the democratic values encapsulated in this building take us a long way to saying that we must do our part to get the decisions made.
I am conscious that, following my mild word of “frustration”, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke about a decision and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, mentioned early work and action rather than talking. We all share the sentiment of those descriptions, but what I take from the hugely valuable contributions made by Members of this House on the programme board is that they should give better confidence to us who are not on the board. We have heard from those noble Lords an identification, even with surprise—the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, spoke about an element of surprise—that progress is undoubtedly being made and that we are in a much better position to take all these steps forward in a timely and very considered fashion, given the value-for-money aspects that have been highlighted.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, in particular that I think we would all agree that we must keep a focus on value for money. In doing this huge project, we need to retain the confidence of people outside this building that it provides value for money. Benchmarking along the way is important, with the continuing scrutiny of the programme board and the other elements of scrutiny: the client board and external experts, who will be important.
I also wanted to put on record our thanks to all engaged as officials on the programme board and across the piece for R&R, as highlighted by noble Lords. It is important that we work collaboratively together. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, that I am sorry, again, that I was mild. My view of the basement is that anyone who is lukewarm about doing this exercise should be dragged there and then come to a considered view.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, made some important points. I respond by saying that the requirements set out in Section 2 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019—that regard must be given to ensuring that temporary accommodation and the restored Palace of Westminster are
“accessible to people with disabilities”—
remain in force and will remain a key consideration in design work both for temporary accommodation while we are away from the Palace and for the restored Palace itself.
On engagement, if the strategic case is agreed at the end of this year, the client team intends to undertake targeted engagement with members with accessibility requirements from early 2024, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, to facilitate forthcoming design work on temporary accommodation and the future Palace. It is absolutely essential that this work is very much at the heart of our consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, raised annualised costings. The forthcoming strategic case will present indicative costings for the two shortlisted options, including annualised costings.
I entirely agree with noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his reference to people giving reasons not to do this. The reasons why we must do it are absolutely clear. However, the building is currently safe for all those in it: as corporate officers, the clerks of both Houses are satisfied that the parliamentary community continues to be safe. But the noble Lord is absolutely correct that we need to act to ensure that the safety of people and the building continues. There has been quite a lot of investment in compartmentalisation for fire. This will not necessarily help the building, but it is all part of ensuring that people are safe—we clearly need to factor that in, and it was one of the key factors raised at the beginning of this debate. The noble Lord is absolutely correct that the cost of £1.45 million per week to do nothing is simply not sustainable; we have to do something.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, raised the parliamentary cycle and the possibilities of elections. I hope that Members of Parliament in both Houses will have courage—and by that I mean the courage to do the right thing, and the courage to know that this building encapsulates the very essence of why the elected House comes here and why we undertake our scrutiny and improvement of legislation. Again, I believe that this is why both Houses intrinsically work together.
But it is clear that the forthcoming strategic case will present indicative costings. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, that this project will be over a considerable period, and my guess is that its cycles may take in a number of general elections. But the point is that mission creep, scope creep and hesitation will all cost money and, in the end, my view is that the electorate will be far more concerned about not wasting money and not prevaricating when we have a task of responsibility before us.
I turn to the issue of heritage. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, raised something that is the essence of part of one of the specifications: why are we so concerned about this building? It started in 1099 with the floor space; in 1399 it got the roof, and in 1521 it got the cloisters. This Palace is all about extraordinary and exceptional heritage, some of which is entirely unique. That is why engagement and dialogue with heritage organisations is so important, as are the lessons learned from what has been undertaken at Buckingham Palace and Manchester Town Hall. This is all about learning, not only here but from some of the work on other parliament buildings, such as what the Dutch and the Canadians have done. Again, I do not in any way suggest that we should be doing anything other than looking at how we best conserve and protect our heritage, but it is also important that, when we move, the heritage that will be in storage is looked after very well for our return.
So many issues have been raised about different aspects, but the most important thing we should all take away is that this is an annual progress report that should encourage us that we are on the right path. There is more work to be done by gallant members of the programme board—I use the word “gallant” despite them not being military, because they add real quality to the consideration of the programme board, which is immensely valuable to the client board. One of the reasons why the decisions Parliament made were of great value and an advantage was that this has drawn us into greater responsibility: we as parliamentarians are more responsible under this new governance and we should all be looking to make our own contributions.
Noble Lords have spoken with both passion and frustration, but we are all working to the same end, and I thank them for their contributions. I hope we might have a few more noble Lords for the strategic case consideration, but this has been an important part of a fairly long-going process.
House of Lords
UN General Assembly September 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the outcomes of the High-Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly held in September 2023.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, high-level week was a critical collective moment to tackle the growing interconnected challenges that we face by listening to the concerns of our partners, particularly in the developing world. We saw important progress made to accelerate delivery of the sustainable development goals. Importantly, the world also heard President Zelensky make the case for a just and sustainable peace in Ukraine, and the UK Government, alongside partners, led in broadening the vital international conversation on artificial intelligence.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his Answer and I look forward to the publication of the White Paper, which I understand is planned for November, on the sustainable development goals. Can I ask more widely? This is perhaps directly related to the non-attendance of our own Prime Minister but also a number of other national leaders around the world—indicating, I think, a feeling of impotence at the moment on the ability of the United Nations to influence the conflicts that we see, and the persecution and violence against individuals in so many countries. Given the failure of the international community to protect civilians in Syria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Ukraine and most recently, of course, Israel and Gaza over recent years, does the UK now recognise that there is a need for fundamental reform of an institution that is still built around the outcome of the Second World War and is not fit for the challenges and conflicts of the 21st century? Will the Government set out at some point their intentions to take a lead in that debate?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the question of attendance, there was high-level attendance from the United Kingdom, led by the Deputy Prime Minister. As the noble Lord may well be aware, it is not the first time that has happened and it is not uncommon. The Deputy Prime Minister led the delegations in 2010 and 2013, and the Foreign Secretary did so between 2001 and 2004 and in 2006 and 2007.
The important element was the discussions and some of the outcomes. The noble Lord is right that conflicts persist around the world. I argue that we are seeing a record number of conflicts around the world, certainly in my time as a Minister. There is a need for early intervention and prevention but also engagement and conflict mediation. The structures are there but they need reform, and the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of that, including supporting Secretary-General Guterres’s common agenda for the future. It is important that we get the sustainable development goals back on track, because they are important to deliver. When you see progress being made there, it needs not just the focus of one country or two countries but a collective unity to ensure that we meet the challenges we currently face.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the SDGs are a vital agenda that, it was agreed, would be completed in 2030. World Food Day was on Monday, and it is a reminder that conflict and climate change threaten the progress that we have made and that this country has led on. The global food summit being held on 20 November is a chance to put this back in the leadership race and make sure that other countries take seriously the nutrition challenge, which is a multiplier in delivering on the SDGs. Can the Minister tell us that he will work with other Governments to ensure that next year’s Nutrition for Growth summit, which is scheduled to be in Paris, will be an opportunity to put things back on track so that we are able to deliver that 2030 agenda?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the important role the noble Lord plays on this important issue. I agree with him on the SDGs; only 15% of the current SDG targets for 2030 are on track. Many have gone into reverse or stalled. Therefore, they require those important commitments.
I agree with the noble Lord on the food security summit, and the UK delegation highlighted hunger during high-level week. The UK has previously hosted the global food security summit and we are focused on delivering those important outcomes. I know the noble Lord agrees with me on this. Summits alone do not deliver outcomes. We have COP 28 coming up and we know the climate challenges. It requires promises and commitments that have been made to be fulfilled, particularly for countries that cannot help themselves. It is important that we stand up and help them.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend remind the House of the Government’s key priorities for the reform of the United Nations organisations? As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, reminded us, they have been in their present form since the Second World War.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend is right to bring focus to that. One practical example is the current status of the UN Security Council, which was built on the pillars of the post-Second World War settlement. We have seen the Security Council not working effectively, particularly as one P5 member—namely, Russia—has interjected quite directly on its illegal war against Ukraine, a founding member of the United Nations. We need reform to reflect the global dynamic of the world today. There are many reforms. The rules-based system needs reform on how we interject when natural disasters hit different parts of the world, for example. These rules were made more than 40 years ago. They need reform to reflect the modern world we live in.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The main reason we are off track with the goal on poverty, as well as the others the Minister referred to, is that the richest nations on earth are not making the contributions they said they would, including the United Kingdom with its unlawful ODA cut. As the Independent Commission for Aid Impact highlighted in its recent report, the UK provided £3.3 billion for multilateral ODA in 2022, but £3.7 billion was spent within the United Kingdom on refugee costs. Will the Minister agree with me that official development assistance for the world’s poorest should be spent overseas and not here in the UK?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the principle the noble Lord articulates, but he will be aware that it is within the ODA rules. The reduction we had to make was reflective of the challenges that the United Kingdom is facing, as all countries are. We remain one of the largest donors when it comes to ODA. It is also right that, as the United Kingdom has done with Ukraine and other conflicts around the world, we look to support those seeking protection here in the United Kingdom. It is within the rules to spend on that within that first 12-month period. He will know that my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell, the Minister for Development, is very seized of the importance of ODA spend globally. That is why the White Paper referred to earlier will also define our future way on ODA spending and our priorities in the years to come.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, when approaching the issue of UN reform—and I agree with both him and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that reform is needed—it is probably wise to approach this in an incremental way and not to try to fashion together one single, overall package? In the light of the state of the world at the moment, that would look to me singularly unlikely to make progress.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has wise insights from his time as our permanent representative at the United Nations. I agree with him about the reform that is needed, but I am sure he would agree with me that it has to go beyond words and papers being produced, and that we need practical delivery of the reforms. I want to move away from the division that is sometimes put forward about the global North and the global South. This should be a comprehensive review of understanding the equities, the strengths, the opportunities and also the challenges we have, and how we work in terms of partnership, particularly for developing nations. I talked about climate earlier; let us be quite real there. Climate change matters in certain respects to certain countries. If you are Vanuatu or Tuvalu—countries in the Commonwealth—climate change is an existential threat. It is vital that we look at the global impact of the decisions we make, but that needs fundamental reforms in the international rules-based system.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has today called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Israel. We need the hostages home safely to their people, and we need to stop the unnecessary bombing of innocent men, women and children. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have been very much engaged and quite heavily involved in the diplomatic efforts since the abhorrent crimes that were committed against the Israeli people and the Israeli nation. Let us be very clear from this House: Hamas itself is a proscribed organisation and its tactics, antics and impact on Israel shook that country to the core. Equally, I assure the noble Lord that we are engaging in all diplomatic efforts. He will have heard the statements of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and indeed those of the right honourable leader of the Opposition, that we as a country are at one. We do not want to see innocent lives lost, be they Israeli or Palestinian. I assure the noble Lord that we are working all diplomatic channels—bilaterally and collectively in the region—to ensure that this conflict, which has cost so many lives already, can be brought to a halt. We need the hostages back and we need humanitarian aid to enter to help the desperate people in Gaza.
State Pensions: Canada Free Trade Agreement
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Thomas of Gresford
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to take steps to index United Kingdom state pensions to inflation for those entitled to them living in Canada, as requested by the government of that country in order to facilitate the proposed new free trade agreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, state pensions are not in the scope of the negotiations on a free trade agreement with Canada. The UK state pension is payable worldwide to those who meet the qualifying conditions, without regard to nationality. The amount is based on an individual’s national insurance record. UK state pensions are uprated overseas only where there is a legal requirement to do so. The Government have no plans to change this policy.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the Canadian Government say that, over the past 30 years, they have made repeated efforts to persuade the UK Government to do what they do for their own citizens: to index the UK pensions of UK retirees who are resident in Canada. On what principle do the Government distinguish between our pensioners in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and certain Caribbean Commonwealth countries and those whose UK pensions are not frozen—in the USA, for example, and, as reinforced in the recent Brexit trade agreement, in the 27 countries in the EU?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The rate of contribution paid has never earned entitlement to indexation of pensions payable abroad. This reflects the fact that the UK scheme is designed primarily for those living in the UK. In drawing up expenditure plans for pensioner benefits, the Government believe that their responsibility is primarily towards pensioners living in this country. The UK’s current social security arrangements with Canada provide for individuals coming to the UK to use periods of residence in Canada for the purposes of entitlement to the UK state pension as well as certain other benefits.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister tell the House that we do fulfil our legal obligations to our overseas pensioners?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, I can certainly give some reassurance on that to my noble friend. She may know that the policy has been challenged in the courts, and the Government’s long-standing position has been upheld by the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in 2005, as well as the European Court of Human Rights in 2008, following a further challenge.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, this goes way beyond Canada. Does the Minister agree that people who have worked and paid national insurance all their lives have earned their state pension? Can he therefore answer the earlier question, which he did not really answer: why, if you choose in retirement to go and live somewhere else, should you not receive what you have earned in full and on the same basis as anybody else?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
This issue goes back to what has happened in the past. The distribution of reciprocal agreements with countries is based on historic ties with those countries and the levels of labour and people mobility flows at the time that the agreements were concluded. We therefore very much have to look back at that, but I reiterate that we have no plans to include this in current or future free trade agreements. I also say to the noble Lord that, as he will know, if we look at the overseas territories, for instance, due to past, historic arrangements, Bermuda, Gibraltar and the sovereign base areas of Cyprus are included, but the rest are not.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I know quite a few members of the Asian community who have worked all their lives in the UK, paid their national insurance and taxes here but, after retirement, have moved to Canada because the Canadian immigration system is far more flexible when it comes to joining blood relations and families together. As a former leader of a council, I know how high the cost can be for a taxpayer for adult social care—sometimes as much as 50% of the revenue budget of a council. Therefore, when some of these UK pensioners move to Canada, UK taxpayers save millions of pounds in not having to look after them in their old age; that burden falls on Canadian taxpayers. After all, they have paid their taxes and their national insurance, why can their pensions not be inflation-proof?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am certainly very aware—this perhaps adds to the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—that the Department for Work and Pensions has received requests for a reciprocal social security agreement from Canada in recent years, including 2020, 2021 and, indeed, this very year. The choice of moving to another country—let us say, Canada—is very much a personal choice and it is not for the Government to encourage or discourage pensioners in moving overseas. I am sure they do so for reasons other than necessarily to do with pensions; it could be to do with family or returning to a country of birth. But, I say again, the Government have no plans to change the policy.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, but the APPG on frozen pensions said in its report in 2020 that 80% of people retiring to Commonwealth countries—Canada, New Zealand and Australia, together with various Caribbean countries—were unaware that their UK pensions would be frozen. Can the Minister tell us what steps the Government have taken since then to publicise their likely predicament? I inform this House that the Government’s website contains no more than a passing reference to this and, like all passing references, it is in brackets. Can we at least remove the brackets and put it in bold type?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, whether there are brackets or not, obviously I will need to go back and check myself what the website says. As I say, people move abroad for many reasons and, before they do so, I am certain that they look at all the pros and cons. It is also their responsibility to take advice and make an informed decision before they move. However, I hope it gives some reassurance that there is information—I hope it is not limited—on GOV.UK as to what the effect of going abroad will be on entitlement to UK state pensions. That is, as I say, just one factor that people will be bearing in mind when making that decision, difficult or otherwise, to move from the UK.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, to come back to Canada for a moment, this was quite an issue in the Canadian media—I am sure the Minister has read the cuttings—but is he aware that last year the Canadian media reported on a woman who got a letter from the DWP telling her that her pension was being stopped and there was no right of appeal? The reason was that she had failed to reply to a letter demanding she return a certificate proving she was still alive. It then turned out that this had happened to thousands of people, none of whom had got the letter. The Canadian media reported that the DWP blamed the Canadian postal system, but this must be a challenge: if you never get a letter, you do not know you are meant to reply to it. You cannot send the certificate back, then you get a letter telling you your pension is over and you cannot appeal, and the DWP will communicate with you only by post. Has this been resolved and how can future pensioners be sure they do not get caught the same way?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I cannot deny that the noble Baroness makes a very good point. I will certainly go back and look at the specific case she has raised. I think she is saying that it extends to others, and I will certainly look at that. As far as I am concerned, the Government should be—and I will check on this—making every communication available for individuals who are seeking to move abroad, particularly to Canada, to have as much of the correct information as possible that they need in order to make all the decisions to make that move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of Members of your Lordships’ House have received letters signed by some 25 Canadian Senators? Did he receive such a letter? If he did, will he be kind enough to put a copy of his reply in the Library? If he did not, I will let him have my letter and perhaps he can do it with that.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can reassure my noble friend that I have received my own letter: actually, it happened to be today, because we have been away. I am already on it and I will certainly be replying to it. I shall be passing it to my officials and making sure that there is a response, and I will certainly make sure that my noble friend is copied in.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister help me understand why pension arrangements have anything to do with free trade agreements?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
If I have not said it before, I assure the noble Viscount that actually the two are separate: social security arrangements linking to pensions are separate from free trade agreements. I think I alluded to that in one of my answers, but let me make it completely clear.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Last Thursday, I was in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe as part of the UK delegation. A group of Canadian parliamentarians very kindly invited a group of the UK members to lunch, and noble Lords may guess what the subject of the lunch was. I was sitting opposite a Senator who launched into a diatribe about the pensioner situation in Canada, and on my left was a female MP from an agricultural constituency who was bemoaning the fact that Canada imports a certain amount of British beef but is unable to export any beef to us at all. So, whatever the Minister and his department may think, there is indeed a very strong connection in the minds of the Canadian Government between the two.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, and I understand how they might wish to make that connection, but I reiterate again that we see no connection. In fact, the agreements that have been put in place in the past have been social security agreements. I also say gently to the noble Lord that the agreement between the EU and Canada is not dissimilar to the current agreement between the UK and Canada.
Employment and Support Allowance
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on getting those on Employment and Support Allowance into work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, in 2017 the Government set a goal to see 1 million more people in work by 2027. Last year, we surpassed that goal five years early. The Government have a range of initiatives to support disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work. This includes work to further join up employment and health systems, including employment advice in NHS talking therapies and individual placement and support in primary care.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the initiatives taken since 2017 to help back into work those who can and to support those who cannot with appropriate measures without penalising them. But is there not a worrying underlying trend in a country that ought to be getting healthier? There are now 2.5 million people out of the workforce due to long-term sickness; that figure is up half a million in the last four years. Last year, there were double the number of new claimants for disability as against the year before. In the last six months, over half those under 24 in work have taken time off because of mental illness. In the last Budget, I welcomed the £2 billion allocated to support back into work those in poor health, but can my noble friend explain how that initiative will reverse the trend I have mentioned in the interests of those who are out of work but also in the interests of the wider economy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The House will not be surprised when I say that that is one of the Government’s biggest challenges—that is very clear. People with long-term sickness are some of the hardest to help and often face multiple barriers in returning to the labour market. There is a range of complex and interacting factors that contribute to the rise in economic inactivity due to long-term sickness, such as changes in population demographics and the increasing prevalence of work-limiting health conditions. On my noble friend’s question, regarding the support in the spring Budget, announcements included Work Well and universal support, and we have increased our support in particular for helping people to get back into work, where they can, with additional work coach time. There are other multiple national strategies and initiatives, including Excellence in Continence Care and the major conditions strategy, and we are moving at pace on a number of these initiatives.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, employment and support allowance is one of the working-age benefits potentially under threat because it is rumoured that it may not be inflation-proofed next year, given the inflation rate announce d today. Given that many benefits have already been subject to a series of cuts since 2010 and the growing evidence of acute hardship among recipients both in an out of work, will the noble Viscount make the case within government for full inflation-proofing as strongly as possible?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I should remind the noble Baroness that we uprated by 10.1% in 2023, and I take her point. I can reassure her that the process leading up to April 2024 is beginning; I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will be looking very carefully at all the evidence, and announcements will be made at the appropriate time.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I declare a long-standing family interest in ESA, particularly in the support group. I venture to offer my noble friend some advice, as I could write not just a book, but a series of books on applications to ESA. The Government need to make sure that they employ people who fully understand the medical conditions they are dealing with. To give a quick example, it is no good having so-called doctors asking people who suffer from epilepsy and epileptic seizures whether they can get in and out of a bath. When the reply comes, “As someone with epilepsy, I am advised not to get into a bath of water”—for obvious reasons—the reply comes back, “Just pretend you don’t have epilepsy. Could you get in and out of a bath or not?” It is not just a joke—it is tragic, because it causes the most appalling problems for many disabled people.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have listened very carefully to my noble friend and have every sympathy. It might help to know that we are looking very carefully at the descriptors for those who are disabled and who may or may not be able to return to the workplace or even take up work. Those descriptors, as part of the WCA, are being particularly considered in terms of the focus on mobility, continence and social engagement. A lot of work is going on in this area; it is being done at pace but also with a great deal of empathy and care.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, let me follow on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, has very movingly said. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, described, we are now in a position where those who are out of the labour market long-term because of ill health are the single biggest challenge facing our economy. Whenever we have this conversation, the Minister mentions different initiatives. However, as we now have 2.6 million people who are out of the labour market long-term, and we know that, for example, 23% of them want a job, that is 600,000 people who are desperate to get back to work but need appropriate help. Instead of having a series of schemes, is it not time to make sure that the core DWP, jobcentres and all the staff understand what they are dealing with when it comes to applications and to helping people to get back to work? The country needs it, and so do they.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is exactly what we are doing. We have been recruiting at pace more experts for the jobcentres and, as the noble Baroness will know, are consulting on the conditionalities and descriptors. It is quite right that we engage with the public and other stakeholders to make sure that we get this right. She will know that the WCA focus is a more rapid matter compared to the National Disability Strategy, which is a much more long-term thing. We are taking this very seriously; she is quite right to point this out, but a lot is going on and it will lead to results.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, to follow on from various other questioners, the jobcentre work coaches will make referrals to the new programme, which the Minister has referred to. There is then initial assessment and then they receive wraparound support. All this sounds very good on paper, but how even-handed will the training and monitoring of these people, who will be assessing people’s future, be across the UK?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am not sure about the definition of “even-handed”, but I reassure the noble Lord that it includes training the experts in the jobcentres in dealing with the individuals they are looking at with a great deal of empathy and sympathy. We know that one in four people who are disabled wish to come into work; it is a question of making sure that the assessment is correctly done, that the individuals concerned buy into it and that employers are engaged in taking them on.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, one such initiative that supports people with a health condition to find and remain in paid employment is called Working Win. It has been piloted in South Yorkshire, and I am assured that both the DWP and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority consider the pilot to have been a success. What plans do the Government have to roll out this health-led employment programme more widely?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Although I do not have information on that specific programme here, I will certainly write to the right reverend Prelate. It no doubt fits in well with and complements many of the other initiatives we are taking, including, as I mentioned earlier, the work coach support, the disability employment advisers, the Access to Work grants and the Disability Confident scheme—I could go on.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, in May 2010, 527,000 people were claiming the employment and support allowance. At that time, the NHS England waiting list was 2.5 million; now, it is 7.8 million and 1.63 million people are claiming the allowance. Clearly, there is a correlation between the two statistics. Can the Minister explain why the Government have failed to address the main cause—the degradation of the NHS?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
This is much more of a health matter, but we in the DWP are focusing on getting the 2.5 million back into work, should they wish to.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, getting more people into work requires resources and training for those on the front line, particularly those in jobcentres. However, surely as important are the contacts made with employers, so what is my noble friend’s assessment of progress in empowering national and local employers to take on more disabled people?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
There are a few initiatives, such as the Disability Confident scheme, which I have alluded to. Increasing access to occupational health is a very important initiative which particularly requires focus on small and medium-sized enterprises that do not normally have occupational health. I also mentioned Access to Work; it is very important that we empower and encourage businesses to take on those who are disabled.
Afghan Interpreters
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many former interpreters who worked with the armed forces in Afghanistan, and former British Council employees, are in Pakistan awaiting relocation to the United Kingdom under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy or other schemes; and how much longer they expect this process to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the ARAP scheme offers relocation to Afghans who worked with us in Afghanistan. The ACRS is designed to support those who have assisted with UK efforts in Afghanistan, including with the British Council, as well as vulnerable people. As of August 2023, we have relocated approximately 12,300 ARAP and 9,700 ACRS-eligible individuals. We will ensure that all eligible British Council contractors who remain in the region are brought to the UK, as the Minister for Immigration set out in the other place yesterday.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I am of course glad that more than 20,000 have been relocated already, but my Question was about the thousands more who are still waiting and trapped. Does it not add insult to injury that thousands of Afghans who worked with and for the UK, and who were encouraged by the UK to flee to Pakistan to expedite the visa process, should now themselves be experiencing at the hands of increasingly hostile Pakistani authorities the kind of daily fear, harassment and deprivation they thought they were leaving behind when they fled the Taliban? They were told they would have their visas in a few weeks, but some have been waiting for almost two years and now face the threat of repatriation to Afghanistan. Why is this visa process taking so long? Why have these people been so badly misled, and what are the Government doing to organise housing for them to come to if, as reported, this really is the main reason for delay?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
It really is the main reason for the delay. We obviously sympathise with the situation many Afghans find themselves in, including those who are suffering due to their work standing up for human rights and the rule of law, and those facing wider persecution by the Taliban. As the Minister for Immigration said yesterday, we remain dedicated to honouring our commitments to those people. We continue to develop plans across government to support new arrivals into suitable accommodation in the UK. Finding suitable accommodation is the biggest problem we have, but work is being done at speed.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the decision taken by the Pakistani Government on refugees? My noble friend will be aware that between 3.5 million and 4 million refugees have been in Pakistan for more than two decades, but most of them are undocumented, and the Pakistani Government took the decision—rightly criticised by human rights organisations across the world—that undocumented refugees should return to Afghanistan. This is a dire situation. The deadline is 1 November. What is His Majesty’s Government doing to protect those who protected us?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend raises a very good question. We estimate that currently, there are around 3,000 ARAP and ACR-eligible individuals in Pakistan. I am of course aware of the actions of the Pakistan Government regarding undocumented illegal immigrants in their country, but the Government are accelerating the arrival of ARAP-eligible individuals currently in Pakistan and we are doing our very best to move them into suitable accommodation as fast as possible.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the Afghan Special Police Commando Force 333 was created, trained, mentored and funded by His Majesty’s Government, initially in support of British counter-narcotics objectives, but later for counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist duties. It is now clear that several deserving members of the force and their families were wrongly refused under the ARAP process and, as a direct consequence, several have been murdered in Afghanistan. Can the Minister provide assurances that the new director of the defence Afghan relocations and resettlement team will be given full support, including from the Home Office, to ensure that all previous 333 refusals are reviewed?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have no knowledge of the circumstances the noble Lord describes, but I obviously very much regret them if they are as he says. It is worth pointing out that, as it says on the GOV.UK website,
“The Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) is for Afghan citizens who worked for or with the UK Government in Afghanistan”—
these are the key words—
“in exposed or meaningful roles”.
Given what the noble Lord has said, I will pass his concerns on to the Ministry of Defence and make sure it is aware of his desire for a review of these circumstances. In total, more than 24,600 people have been brought to safety. Work is continuing at pace, but I will make sure the MoD is aware of those special circumstances.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is welcome that the ACRS pathway 3 has been expanded to all those deemed at risk who applied with the original FCDO scheme last year. However, more than two years after Op Pitting, it feels like Afghanistan is a forgotten war and those who worked alongside the British military are forgotten victims. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about those in Pakistan. Do the Government have any understanding of how many people had visas to be in Pakistan, whose visas have now expired? I have the names of at least 63 linked with the British Council whose visas have expired; I can pass those to the Home Office, but there must be many more. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to deal with individuals whom we know we have documentation for? What are we doing about bringing them out of Pakistan and to the United Kingdom?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I say first to the noble Baroness that this is not a forgotten war and these are not forgotten people. As I say, these are people to whom the Government will honour all their commitments, whenever and however they were made. I am not party to the precise details of individuals whose visas may have lapsed. She is welcome to send me those details and I will make sure they go to the appropriate places.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, it appears that prior to June of last year, most applications for resettlement from members of CF 333 were approved. Subsequently, most were rejected, and indeed some prior approvals were rescinded. In following up on the noble Lord’s question, could the Minister obtain for the House some information on the source of and rationale for this dramatic change of policy, which, as we have heard, has resulted in some deaths?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am happy to provide the noble and gallant Lord with that information; I will do my very best to find it.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that much of the world is not as stable as we would like, and that we have a duty of care to locally employed staff in our embassies, particularly in countries which are in difficulty at this time and could be in a similar situation to Afghanistan? Have we learnt these lessons?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Of course I accept that, and I absolutely take my noble friend’s point.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, let us remind ourselves once again, as other noble Lords have done, that this scheme is for those Afghans and their families who risked their lives working with and for the British military in exposed or meaningful roles, as the Minister outlined. Can the Minister therefore explain why, according to evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry yesterday, many occupations such as mechanics and others who helped our troops in Afghanistan are often not deemed eligible, despite their being threatened or indeed killed by the Taliban? As the policy stands, the consequence for many of those desperate people and their families will be being isolated, facing the terror of the Taliban on their own. Does the Minister not agree with me that those who stood with our troops deserve better than that?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that those who stood with our troops deserve the best we have to offer. I go back to the point I made earlier: the definition of people who are eligible for ARAP is those who served in exposed or meaningful roles. I cannot precisely define what those terms mean, but I think we can all imagine it. I will do more to find out whether mechanics and other job descriptions match these criteria, as I cannot answer that.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, surely the best we have to offer is a safe abode. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, indicated the absolute moral responsibility we have for these people, and my noble friend Lady Warsi said that we are talking about less than a fortnight for some of them. Can we not have an absolute, definitive statement that my noble friend will go back to the Home Office, talk to the Home Secretary and ensure that these people have the safety their service to this country demands?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with my noble friend but as I pointed out earlier, the principal problem is the lack of availability of suitable accommodation, much of which is provided by the MoD. That is not to say that we are not honouring our commitments; we absolutely are, and we are accelerating the speed of arrivals into this country.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that it will be cold comfort for these exposed people to be told, “Yes, we accept our responsibility, but we cannot deal with you until housing becomes available”, at a time when they may be sent back to Afghanistan to an uncertain fate? The whole point of housing is surely that there must be some definite time; otherwise, they will be told that they will have to wait indefinitely until housing appears.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No one is talking about making anybody wait indefinitely. We are accelerating our work in this area as fast as we can, in accordance with the various prevailing circumstances that have been described.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Wednesday 18th October 2023
(1 year, 1 month 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 172-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (17 Oct 2023)
16:31 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 204 - Motion A1 agreed.
16:43 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 209 - Motion B1 agreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 151A and do not insist on its Amendments 151B and 151C in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 151D.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motions B and B1.
It is a great pleasure to bring this Bill before your Lordships’ House once more. I hope it is for the last time, as I know that Companies House and law enforcement agencies are keen to use the important changes made by it. Without it, we will not be able to fund the recruitment of hundreds of new staff at Companies House to deliver the transformation that we all agree is needed. We will not be able to tackle SLAPPs, fraudsters will continue to be able to take advantage of vulnerable victims via fake companies, and we will not be able to go after the assets of criminals as effectively as we might. I could go on.
The Government have listened carefully to noble Lords during the Bill’s passage and have already moved significantly. This is an extensive and comprehensive Bill, standing now at nearly 400 pages of drafting, and it is imperative that we see it become statute. Noble Lords will of course be aware that the end of the Session is fast approaching.
I start by discussing Motion A, which seeks to reinsert the SME exemption for the failure to prevent fraud offence. I am grateful that my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier has moved closer yet again to the Government’s position by exempting microentities and smaller organisations from the offence. However, I am afraid that the burdens that this would place on medium-sized enterprises are simply too great, and so the Government cannot and will not support any lowering of the SME threshold that we have introduced. The threshold proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier would cost medium-sized enterprises £300 million more in one-off costs and nearly £40 million more in annual recurring costs.
However, it is not just about these costs—although they fully justify the Government’s position in their own right. Undoubtedly, a chilling effect also occurs with the imposition of a criminal offence. I have spoken before about my experience of working in the City. I know from that experience that, when this type of new regulation shows up, a whole industry of lawyers, consultants and accountants cranks into action, telling businesses what they can and cannot do. All this distracts businesses from what they should be doing, which is creating jobs and growing their businesses, which benefits the whole economy. As Kit Malthouse, the Member for North West Hampshire, put it in the House of Commons, the SME threshold is
“a level at which companies can absorb the step up in responsibility, and without a disproportionate amount of cost”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/23; col. 947.]
I therefore urge noble Lords to support the government Motion to reinsert the SME threshold, to ensure that we take a proportionate approach and do not impose unnecessary measures that will curb our economic growth.
I now move on to discuss government Motion B, focusing on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on cost protection in civil recovery cases. The Government remain of the view that this type of amendment will be a significant departure from the loser pays principle, and therefore not something that should be rushed into without careful consideration. However, that is not to say that this type of amendment is necessarily a bad idea, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it to our attention. With that being said, it would not be responsible for us to rush into making such a significant change at the tail-end of a Bill without full consideration by the Government and commensurate scrutiny by Parliament. That is why we previously added a statutory commitment in the Bill to review the payment of costs in civil recovery cases in England and Wales by enforcement authorities, and to publish a report on the findings and to lay it before Parliament within 12 months. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is the responsible approach to take and therefore support government Motion B.
In conclusion, I encourage noble Lords to agree with the Government’s position in these two areas. It is vital that we achieve Royal Assent without delay so that we can proceed to implement the important reforms in this Bill as quickly as possible. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Garnier
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 151A, do not insist on its Amendments 151B and 151C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 151D, and do propose Amendments 151E and 151F in lieu—
“Section (Failure to prevent fraud): small organisations
(1) For the purposes of section (Failure to prevent fraud)(1) a relevant body is a “small 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 | Not more than £10.2 million |
Balance sheet total | Not more than £5.1 million |
Number of employees | Not more than 50. |
(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 “small 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 not a small 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 paragraph (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, the cracked record is up and at it yet again, but I make no apology because, although I fully understand the timetabling difficulties that the Government face—namely, that they would like to see this Bill receive Royal Assent before the close of the Session—I think we all ought to agree that it is better that, if we are to give this Bill a route through to Royal Assent, it should be a good Bill.
Most of the Bill is good, but this particular provision in relation to failure to prevent fraud offences falls down. I will not make the same speech that I made on 11 September, nor the same speech that I made in July, nor the same speech that I made in the spring, nor the same speech that I have made probably half a dozen times since I came into this House and probably a dozen times when I was a Member of the other place. Suffice to say that nothing I have heard from the Government, and nothing I have heard from those representing the Government in the other place, has come anywhere near meeting the case that has to be met.
First, it seems to me as a matter of straightforward principle that the criminal law should be uniform. It should apply to all in exactly the same way, and any defence that is available to a criminal offence should also be the same and applied to all uniformly. Of course, it will be up to the prosecuting authorities to consider the evidence and whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution on the evidence available, but we should not leave this Bill in a position where there is a different failure to prevent fraud offence for most companies than there is for 0.5% of the corporate and partnership economy.
I add this. There should be a form of consistency between each of the Government’s Bills dealing with failure to prevent. The Bribery Act 2010 has a failure to prevent bribery offence. The Criminal Finances Act 2017 has a failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion offences. Neither of those two failure to prevent offences is limited in its scope, in so far as neither of those Acts of Parliament provide an exemption for anybody, still less for 99.5% of the corporate economy. For some extraordinary reason which is yet to be explained this Bill provides that only 0.5% of the corporate and partnership economy should remain liable for any failure to prevent fraud offences. I have yet to find an answer.
I read in Hansard the House of Commons debate of 11 September which overturned my successful amendment. My right honourable friend Mr Kit Malthouse said that, clearly, I do not understand anything since I have never run a business. Well, he is wrong about that, quite apart from being offensive, because I have run my own business as a self-employed barrister for nearly 50 years. Furthermore, I have been a head of a set of chambers, which is, if I may say so, quite a respectable business to run.
Lord Garnier (Con)
If one wants to learn anything from the speeches made in the House of Commons, I suggest that my noble friends on the Front Bench— and other noble Lords if they have a moment—read those of Sir Robert Buckland and Sir Jeremy Wright, two former law officers. They agree with my remarks of 11 September and find it puzzling that their own Government, a Government who are in favour of producing cogent and cohesive criminal law, have come up with this dog’s dinner.
I have done my best to be accommodating. It is not an accusation that is often levelled at me, but on this occasion, I think that it can be, justly. I have done my best to meet some of the Government’s less organised thinking. As I said at the outset, as a matter of principle. I cannot understand why there should be an exemption for anyone from the proposed criminal law, just as there is not under the Bribery Act and the Criminal Finances Act. However, to make life easier for the Government, on the last occasion I suggested that microbusinesses should be exempted from the failure to prevent fraud offences provision. I abandoned my provisions relating to the failure to prevent money laundering. The Government did not find that attractive, even though I tried to explain my abandoning of the principle on the basis that just as we have an age limit for criminal responsibility—10—we could perhaps also, by a rather clumsy analogy, exempt microbusinesses from criminal responsibility under the failure to prevent provision. That did not seem to go down very well with the Government—certainly not with Mr Kit Malthouse.
I have now moved a little further towards the Government. You may say, “Well, that’s a bit wet. If you’ve got any principles, why not stick to them?” Well, okay, accuse me of being wet, but I am doing my best to help the Government get out of an unnecessarily sticky hole. I have amended my proposal so that rather than microbusinesses being exempted, “small” businesses should be exempted—I define a small business on page 5 of the amendment paper, which states that, for the purposes of this provision,
“a relevant body is a ‘small organisation’ only if the body satisfied two or more of the following conditions in the financial year of the body … that precedes the year of the fraud offence”.
Those conditions are that the turnover of the business should be
“Not more than £10.2 million”,
the balance sheet should be
“Not more than £5.1 million”
and the number of employees should be “Not more than 50”.
In speaking against my own case, I rather wish that I had not put that down, but I have because I am trying to assist my noble friend on the Front Bench in getting his Bill enacted before the end of this Session.
I repeat that the criminal law should be uniform. Defences to the criminal law should be uniform. We should not have exemptions based on the size of the business. The Theft Act applies to all suspects—I am seeing whether my noble friend still enjoys my old joke about the six feet six burglar—regardless of whether they are six feet six or five feet six. We do not exempt people on the basis that they are small people or do not fit a particular height, so why are we doing it here? I have yet to find out. I am afraid that unless the Government move a little closer to me, I will invite your Lordships to join me in the Division Lobby.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Motion B1, as an amendment to Motion B, which is being debated within this group. It would
“leave out from ‘House’ to end and insert ‘do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 161A, do not insist on its Amendment 161B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 161C, and do propose Amendment 161D in lieu’”.
That is very clear.
We return to what has been described as a cost-capping amendment. Since this is not the first time that we have had the debate, I will try to be brief. This Bill has been a welcome, if late, addition to the government agencies in their fight to combat fraud. The scrutiny of the Bill through your Lordships’ House has been thorough and constructive. It has also been non-party political. I do not think that either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, or I would consider ourselves to be natural rebels.
All noble Lords have participated in this debate—and I very much include the Ministers in this—with a common purpose: to make this legislation as effective as it can be. Two themes emerged during the many debates. The first was the scale of the problem. The Government estimate, for example, that £100 billion was laundered through the United Kingdom last year, and yet under the Proceeds of Crime Act assets of only £345 million were recovered: that is 0.3%. The second theme was the frequent imbalance that exists between the resources available to enforcement agencies and those of the fraudsters, who may well employ expensive lawyers and have significant resources to enable them to do so. This modest amendment tries to do a little to restore that balance. I would have liked the enforcement agencies to have had complete protection against costs orders in the event that they lost a recovery claim, but in the course of ping-pong I have had to compromise somewhat, hence the form of the current amendment before your Lordships’ House.
The amendment does not prevent a judge from doing what is fair on costs in any particular case, but it is a nudge towards him or her to take into account the reasonableness of the agency bringing proceedings at all and the potential impact on its ability to carry out its functions if left with a substantial costs order. I struggle to understand the Government’s objection to this amendment and its predecessors; they seem, with respect, to be adopting a somewhat tender approach to fraudsters.
There is a clear precedent for this sort of amendment: when your Lordships’ House introduced a provision concerning the much-underused unexplained wealth orders. If it loses a case, the enforcement authority will have to pay costs only if it has acted unreasonably. As to the objection that it offends the “loser pays” principle, that is a misconceived argument. Judges regularly, in ordinary cases, make orders that each side bear their own costs, or make issue-based costs orders, or other orders which reflect the justice of the individual case. Parliament has legislated in ways that depart from this so-called principle: for example, QOCS—that is Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting—in personal injury litigation; or by Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act; or in relation to unexplained wealth orders. This amendment is intended to reduce the possibility of an agency saying to itself, “We cannot afford the risk to the budget if we lose a case, even when we’ve got good evidence to bring it”.
Spotlight on Corruption suggests that a number of cases are in the pipeline which bear costs risks. These are said to include over 60 cases being reviewed by one agency, and close to £1 billion in assets frozen by an enforcement body.
Another advantage to this amendment is that those defendants or respondents to an application who defend these cases will know that, even if their legal strategy prevails, they may not recover their costs. This may mean that they are keener to reach a compromise.
The amendment has the support of all those bodies that are concerned with anti-corruption. Incidentally, it also has the support of Bill Browder, who regards it as one of the most significant potential improvements to the Bill. Let us please not kick this into touch and have yet another report, which is the Government’s suggestion. If necessary, I will move Motion B1 and test the opinion of the House.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support both Motion A1 and Motion B1. I turn first to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s Motion and offer three reasons why I believe the Minister is completely wrong.
First, the smallest SMEs include some of the most unscrupulous enablers. Take estate agents, for example: they are a conduit of bad money into this country from all over the world. The gaps that the Minister is proposing to leave in the Bill will ensure that this continues. I have seen one case, for which I had to sign an NDA, of an individual who spent £150 million buying property but is apparently allowed to take only $12,000 a year out of the country. How did he manage that? That is a perfectly good example and no doubt we will hear more like it.
Secondly, on this set of rules, I offer the Minister an example. We do not say to the manufacturers of small cars that they do not need seat belts and that for some reason they are exempted. That would be an absolute nonsense and the same applies here. He mentioned costs—£300 million and £40 million—but they are entirely specious. We have seen no proper analysis of these figures; they are just waved around as a convenient excuse not to do something.
My last reason is that these smaller businesses need to be most alert to fraud. A failure to prevent helps them to make sure that their own systems are able to face these risks. We know that 40% of crime in this country is economic crime, but we deploy less than 1% of our resources on dealing with it. Surely smaller businesses should be equipped to know when they are dealing with crooks. I will have to support my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier if the matter is put to a vote.
In relation to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, we again pursued this relentlessly for six months. Bill Browder said to me on several occasions that, if this Bill is to go through, we must make sure that we have some cost capping in it. It is a war of very unequal proportions. We know that the agencies have small budgets and that they have to go cap in hand to the Treasury if they need more money, which is never given. They even have to return the costs they recover to the Treasury. All this is doing is sending a message to these bad actors that, if they take on this kind of behaviour, they will have significant risks. We have amended this on several occasions to give more discretion to the courts to ensure that, if an agency overreacts and behaves rapaciously or capriciously against individuals, those individuals are not penalised.
If we are serious about dealing with the tidal wave of economic crime that is coming to this country, the Minister will give us the assurance that this is being dealt with. If not, I will have to support the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in his Division.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we have heard two different reasons for the proposed Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. He said that it was to give the courts a gentle nudge, but my noble friend Lord Agnew said that it would give fraudsters a significant warning that they might not get their costs. The same words cannot do both. The problem lies in the amendment being entirely unnecessary.
The previous version of the amendment said:
“The court should normally make an order that any costs of proceedings … are payable by an enforcement authority … unless it would not be in the interests of justice”.
We now have a list of factors—proposed new paragraphs (a) to (d)—but a court would always take those factors into account in its general discretion to make an appropriate costs order in a particular case.
My concern with this list is that it appears to be exhaustive and therefore does not include, for example, the result of the case or the effect on the successful party of not getting the legal costs which he has expended. I declare an interest as a lawyer, although not an expensive one in the category identified by the noble Lord. I therefore respectfully suggest that this amendment is entirely unnecessary. It reduces the discretion that we generally give the courts on matters of costs and omits factors that the courts should take into account in particular cases when considering costs. Therefore, I suggest that the House leaves this well alone and does not accept the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will talk a little about the role of the House as a revising Chamber and the legislative process. I am not an expert on the legalities of combating fraud, although I am well aware of the international dimensions of economic crime as someone who worked in the international sphere.
We have had a thorough committee process which was largely non-partisan; indeed, the way this House has treated the Bill has been almost entirely so. I have learned a great deal from a number of former Conservative Ministers and Cross-Benchers on the Bill, and I am interested to hear that two other former Conservative Ministers in the House of Commons supported the approach of these two Motions.
We are a revising Chamber, and the parliamentary process should be one in which reasoned amendments are taken into account by the Government and, where the Government are not entirely sure of their ground, compromises are made. The role of a Lords Minister is partly to act as a mediator between the reasoned arguments in this Chamber and the insistence of Cabinet Ministers that whatever they had thought of in the first place should absolutely go through unchanged. I have a strong memory of talking to Cabinet Ministers when I was a Lords Minister about why perhaps they might not wish to insist on their full original, because the reasoned arguments made in the Lords were sufficiently persuasive. That is the process that should be taken on. This is not an attempt to delay the Bill further: we are all committed to it going through. We are also committed to future-proofing it, so that it does not have to be amended, and to producing a Bill that commands as wide a consensus of support as possible.
I remind the Minister that we have not followed that for some Bills we have seen in recent Sessions. I am sure that he is well aware of the issue of party finance, which came up in the Elections Act and the National Security Act. He was sufficiently firm in resisting some of our arguments as to accuse me at one point of spreading rumours about a non-problem. I have now learned that the Leader of the Commons, Penny Mordaunt, has just written to the Security Minister to ask for the assistance of the intelligence agencies in investigating the origins of donations to political parties from foreign sources, so clearly there is now recognition within government that there is a real problem. There are other aspects of that Elections Act, particularly the insistence on a strategy statement from the Secretary of State, which the Government also appear to have had second thoughts on. Sadly, whoever become the next Government will have to introduce another elections Bill to put right some of the things that this House wished to amend but that the Government resisted.
Here we are with a Bill that has been improved and carefully scrutinised, and on which I, certainly, am persuaded by having listened at length and in succession to the arguments made by former Conservative Ministers wanting simply to improve the Bill to improve the fight against international fraud and economic crime.
Having been persuaded by that, I and the team on these Benches will recommend that Members of the Liberal Democrat group in the House support both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord in pressing their amendments, if they wish to do so, because we believe in a legislative process in which this House has a role to play, in carefully scrutinising and improving Bills, and making sure that when a Bill becomes an Act, it lasts for some time, because it commands a widespread consensus.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the case that the Minister advanced against these amendments. The core of that case seemed to be that the cost of a company actually responding to this legislation would make the company less efficient, and that it should be concentrating, as he said, on increasing its production and activities, and not be bothered with issues such as fraud, perhaps. What was peculiar about the Minister’s argument was that it was an argument which could be placed against any regulation whatever. It could be placed against the need, as has been commented already, to have seatbelts in cars. That increased the costs of production of the vehicle and, indeed, the cost of the vehicle. It could be argued that most financial regulation, which seeks to increase the stability and respectability of the financial system in this country, increases costs. Yes, it does, but the benefit far exceeds the cost.
If the Minister feels that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, increases costs and damages production, why is he accepting it at all, even for larger companies? It seems to me that this is an empty argument. The Minister has not produced any data or argument for the cost-benefit trade-off on which he has rested his entire case. In fact, I think he has no case at all.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by echoing something that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said: overall, we all believe that this is a good Bill. It is a step forward, and we welcome the changes that the Government have made over a number of months to improve it, and that they have listened to the various points that have been made. It would be churlish not to say that to the Minister at the outset, but that does not alter the fact that the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, seek to address two omissions where, even at this late stage, the Government could act to further improve the Bill. I say to both that should they choose to test the opinion of the House, we certainly will support them in the Lobbies to do that.
I will not repeat the arguments. It was interesting; sometimes, when you are constrained by time, the argument distils down to its essence. I think that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Agnew, Lord Eatwell and Lord Wallace, really summed it up with respect to his amendment. As he said, the failure to prevent bribery offence applies to everyone; there is no opt-out or exemption. The Government do not think that that is too burdensome for anyone. As he also said, no company is too small to be exempted from the failure to prevent tax evasion offence. But on this particular emphasis, the failure to prevent fraud, the Government come forward and say: “We need to protect a certain number of businesses”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has moved amendment after amendment to try to come closer to the Government’s position. As the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Eatwell, have just said, if you took that to its extreme, you would impose no costs on business at all, and they used the seatbelt argument. So we are very happy to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, should he choose to test the opinion of the House.
I shall pick out one aspect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. It was a feature of all our debates and discussions that we wanted law enforcement to take tougher action against those who committed fraud. We believed that the state could and should take more action, that the amount of money lost with respect to fraud was enormous and that we need to do something about it. What I picked out from what the noble Lord said was about reducing the possibility of action not being taken by law enforcement agencies because they were frightened of the possibility of costs —not on the merits of the case that they might seek to pursue but simply because they were frightened that they may incur costs. As such, both amendments are simple but important ones that would do what this House, and I believe the public, expect Parliament to do, which is to give as much power as possible within the Bill to tackle the problem of fraud, which is what we all want.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively short debate. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, I am in danger of sounding like a cracked record on this subject, so I will keep my remarks brief. I reassure my noble and learned friend that I still find his joke funny and I am glad he keeps making it. I thank him for being incredibly gracious although we continue to disagree on these matters. I have to say I do not believe the Bill is a dog’s dinner or that these arguments are dog’s-dinnery. We are not in a sticky hole on this; it is a difference of opinion, and I will make a couple of the arguments that I have rehearsed before in support of that.
I shall deal with my noble and learned friend’s amendment by first reminding him and the House that this may be a relatively small number of companies but, as I have said many times before from this Dispatch Box, they account for 50% of economic output in this country. The heart of the argument comes down to why there is a threshold for this offence but not for the offences of failing to prevent bribery or the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. As I have reminded the House on numerous occasions, the Law Commission has identified the disparity here: it is easier to prosecute smaller organisations under the current law, which this failure to prevent offence will address. The new offence is less necessary for smaller firms, where it is easier to prosecute individuals and businesses for the substantive fraud offence. The Government therefore believe it would be disproportionate to impose the same burden on them. The fact is that this is not an exemption from the law; the law applies in a different way to these smaller companies, as we have tried to explain on a number of occasions. I think I will leave that there.
On Motion B1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I do not think that this represents a tender approach to fraudsters. As we have said and made the case on a number of occasions, fundamental changes are being proposed here, and the review that we have proposed seems like a fair way of assessing precisely the implications of making those changes.
I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson for highlighting some of the complexities in this area in his particularly acute legal way, which I am not equipped to follow. However, I can perhaps answer the question about the difference in introducing the cost protection amendment for civil recovery compared with unexplained wealth orders. This issue has come up in previous debates as well. The fact is that the difference between the changes made to the unexplained wealth order regime by the first Economic Crime Act last year and what is proposed in this amendment is that unexplained wealth orders are an investigatory tool that do not directly result in the permanent deprivation of assets, whereas the civil recovery cases covered by the amendment could do so. There could therefore be a host of serious unintended consequences of such a change to the wider civil recovery regime, so the Government cannot support the amendment. A review is the appropriate way to look at this issue. As I tried to make clear in my opening remarks, that may well be a very good idea, but we would like to be convinced of that and to do the work before we actually accept it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for generously accepting that we have made significant improvements to the Bill through its passage. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we have engaged extensively with all noble Lords in this House on the Bill. I thank him for his explanation of how he believes a revising Chamber should operate. The fact is that we are not sufficiently persuaded of the arguments against this, so there is a genuine difference of opinion. I do not think the noble Lord would mean to imply that this House should necessarily have a veto where there is such a difference of opinion. I think that is a fairly straightforward argument and a perfectly respectable one.
Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government have worked hard to ensure the right balance between tackling economic crime and ensuring that the UK remains a place where law-abiding businesses can flourish without unnecessary burdens. The Motions tabled by the Government today achieve that balanced and proportionate approach. I therefore urge all noble Lords to support them.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I will make one point in total agreement with my noble friend the Minister—we are not having a row, we are having an argument. He and I have a different view about the merits of our respective arguments. If the House listens to no other speeches, and if it wishes to forget mine, I urge noble Lords to remember what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and my noble friend Lord Agnew said. From both sides of this House, they perfectly summed up the lacuna in the Government’s case.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Despite the fact that this is not an argument about party politics—it has nothing whatever to do with the Salisbury convention—I regret that I am insufficiently persuaded by my noble friend the Minister that he has quite got the point. I must therefore ask the House if it will join me in agreeing with my Motion by testing the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 161A in lieu and do not insist on its Amendment 161B in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 161C.
“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 “House” to end and insert “do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 161A, do not insist on its Amendment 161B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 161C, and do propose Amendment 161D in lieu—
“Civil recovery of proceeds of crime: costs of proceedings
Civil recovery: costs of proceedings
After section 316 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 insert—
“316A 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) When assessing what order to make in relation to the costs of proceedings, the court should take into account—
(a) the merits of the case,
(b) whether the enforcement authority acted reasonably in bringing proceedings,
(c) whether costs were reasonably incurred by any party to the proceedings, and
(d) the impact of any order on—
(i) the enforcement authority, and its ability to carry out its enforcement functions, and
(ii) any other party to the proceedings.”””
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will not amplify what has already been said. I am grateful to all noble Lords, including the Minister, for engaging in this debate. He said that it was not a bad amendment, which was kind of him; I would say that it is an amendment that this House, for the reasons that I have already given, should welcome. It is an improvement to the Bill and I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner Elections, Recall Petitions and Referendums (Ballot Secrecy, Candidates and Undue Influence) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Mott
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 July be approved.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument is largely technical in nature and makes updates to the relevant electoral conduct rules to ensure effective implementation of measures in the Elections Act 2022 and the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.
Undue influence is an electoral offence that criminalises behaviour which seeks, in various ways, to coerce a person to vote in a certain way or abstain from voting. The 2015 Tower Hamlets petition demonstrated that protection from undue influence remains highly relevant and important in 21st-century Britain. However, the offence originated in the 19th century and prior to our changes in the Elections Act 2022 was considered difficult to interpret and enforce.
The Elections Act updated the existing offence of undue influence for UK parliamentary and local government elections in England and all elections in Northern Ireland. The revised offence better protects voters from improper influences to vote in a particular way or not to vote at all. It also provides clearer legal drafting to assist authorities in enforcing it. The purpose of these regulations is to apply the updated offence to police and crime commissioner elections, recall petitions, local authority referendums and neighbourhood planning referendums.
Political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society, which is why Part 5 of the Elections Act introduced a new disqualification order aimed at offenders who intimidate those who participate in public life. The order introduces a five-year ban on standing for or holding public office. The Elections Act also extended the powers of returning officers to hold a nomination paper invalid where a candidate is disqualified under the new order and requires candidates to declare that they are not disqualified under it. These changes apply to Northern Ireland and to local and UK parliamentary elections.
The Act also amended the relevant vacancy rules, including for UK parliamentary elections, to reflect the timing of vacancies occurring as a result of the new order and ensure that those disqualified vacate office. This SI replicates these changes for nomination for police and crime commissioner elections as well as for local and combined authority mayoral elections, and updates the vacancy rules for combined authority mayors.
In addition, the Elections Act introduced a new measure to permit greater flexibility in the use of commonly used names by candidates on nomination and ballot papers. This change means that candidates can use their middle name as a commonly used name—an odd omission from previous legislation on this topic—and amends the existing rules for UK parliamentary elections, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections in Northern Ireland.
This change clarifies the law for candidates and returning officers. We know that practice has varied on this at times and across local authorities. Therefore, clarification will also provide consistency. This instrument makes the same change to the conduct rules for local and combined authority mayoral elections in England and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. It also amends the nomination paper completed by candidates at these polls to reflect the new provisions.
I turn to the provisions in the instrument concerning the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hayward for his work on this important new measure. The Act introduced two new offences: first, for a person to be with another person at a polling booth and, secondly, for a person to be near a polling booth while another person is at that booth, with the intention in both cases of influencing the other person to vote in a particular way or to refrain from voting. This Act, which applies to UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England, as well as elections in Northern Ireland, aims to provide polling station staff with a firmer basis on which to challenge suspected inappropriate behaviour in polling stations. This instrument completes the implementation of the Act by extending the new offence to police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, MP recall petitions across the UK, and local government, council tax and neighbourhood planning referendums in England.
It is vital that these rules be updated in relation to the Elections Act and Ballot Secrecy Act measures to ensure consistency and fairness across electoral law. Applying these measures across the relevant election rules will modernise and strengthen the integrity of voting and offer necessary protection for electors, candidates, campaigners and elected officeholders. I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for his helpful and detailed introduction. Paragraph 2.1 on page 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum reflects the complexities of modern democratic citizenship. Its last sentence must be welcomed; it is a definite no to undue influence. Likewise, it is interesting to note in the Explanatory Note
“the amended candidacy rights for EU citizens introduced by section 15 of the Act”—
for example, form 2A on page 14.
Concerning the police and crime commissioner elections, I draw attention most positively to Schedule 5. There are four pages in the language of heaven—the Welsh language from the lovely land of Wales, which is my homeland. You rarely see Welsh on official Whitehall and Westminster papers, and pages 47 to 50 are distinctive; this is good. Were these pages prepared by the department, was it subcontracted to the Senedd or was it entirely the work of the translation service?
Our North Wales Police force is well regarded. It has major challenges and overcomes them. Its terrain is mountainous, coastal and estuarial and exhibits the great earthworks of the early medieval warlords Offa and Wat. They were not specifically dug to keep us warrior Welsh out of Saxon territory, and today they are notable for the Welsh place names on the western side of the earthworks and for the Saxon on the eastern—the Saxon -tons, for example, Commissioner Dunbobbin is excellent, and for ever amidst the far-flung citizenry. I had the honour of teaching his mother, and observe and know him well. Our recently appointed chief constable is on the Welsh speakers course, and I suggest that the noble Lord visits our constabulary; he would be warmly welcomed by a hospitable chief constable and by our diligent commissioner.
I note that Regulation 11 applies to Wales only. The mayoralty of London is fast becoming a great office of state and sometimes appears to rival our premiership: the City, money, influence, Heathrow’s runways and the Met—it is quite a list. The mayoralty of Manchester has been made a great success; a former Cabinet Minister just knows how.
Has former Cottonopolis, now the home of magical graphene, edged ahead of Chamberlain’s second city, Birmingham? For certain, the mayor, the former head of the ubiquitous John Lewis, has brought further fame to Birmingham and—intentionally or otherwise—allied his HS2 thinking to that of Manchester’s mayor. That is quite a local government alliance. The mayoralty of Teesside appears talismanic to His Majesty’s Government, and its noble presence is in your Lordships’ House. Is it appropriate to describe a group of elected mayors as a “clutch” or a “gathering”? Perhaps the pressured PM of the day would deploy the description of a “gang”. Concerning mayoralties, there do seem to be constant, strong, hitherto unforeseen challenges to Downing Street. However, they are all constitutional, democratic and buttressed by the secret ballot of regional citizens.
Lastly, referendums have edged big time into British parliamentary life. Some 53 years ago, when one entered Westminster, they were not there; now, the unforeseen consequences of devolved Governments in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh have manifested themselves over nearly a quarter of a century. For example, in the Covid emergency, central government was occasionally embarrassed by First Ministers who knew how to deploy well-timed televised press conferences. It really can be a challenge when central government is of one political complexion and the other Governments of Britain are of the opposite—so very obviously critical, angry and ambitious, yet legitimate and constitutional.
I am very proud of the Wales Assembly, now the Senedd. It powers on some 25 years; it is but an eye-blink in the great history of Wales, a sort of infinitesimal timeline. Government is messy and always challenging. Constitutional change is often a step in the dark. A referendum on a British scale is truly an “historic midwife”, but it is constitutional of course. I end again by thanking the noble Lord for his helpful introduction.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jones, who I think entered the other place at a point when my role in elections was counting the posters as I walked to my primary school, wondering what on earth this was all about.
After our extensive debates on the Elections Act, I do not think we need to spend a lot of time dwelling on these various measures which are necessary following the changes made by that Act, and by the Ballot Secrecy Act that was steered through so skilfully by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who I am pleased to see in his place. I will not dwell on any of these measures, except to say that I think they again really illustrate the need to properly codify all of our electoral legislation, as recommended by the Law Commission some years ago. I would be grateful if the Minister, who I can see is nodding, might confirm that the Government are interested in this idea in principle.
I will, however, say today that the Ballot Secrecy Act was necessary, as shown by the legal advice obtained by the Electoral Commission, and that it provides greater clarity for presiding officers. It is clearly right, therefore, that the provisions of the Ballot Secrecy Act apply to all other elections, to referendums and to recall petitions.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his kind comments. As he knows, and as I think many others in the Chamber also know, he played a prime role in progressing the idea that we should seek counsel’s opinion from the Electoral Commission to establish clarity in relation to the law, to which I shall return in a moment.
In relation to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, I am reminded that in fact, the first time I ever cast a vote in person—I can say it in Welsh, but I am not sure I could spell it if Hansard asked me to check it—I voted in favour of Sunday opening. This was a referendum in Pembrokeshire at the time that I lived there. I will not go down the Welsh language route.
Lord Jones (Lab)
The first referendum was lost; the second was won. In the Marcher area on Sundays, you would see thirsty men queuing for a bus from Wales to Chester.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention—it saved me from my attempt to speak Welsh.
Before I move on to one or two aspects of this, I seek clarification on what my noble friend the Minister said as he opened the debate: that is, that on page 51, the note refers to a series of different elections with regard to the application of the Ballot Secrecy Act. There is no reference to parliamentary elections but, as I understood it, he was confirming that the Ballot Secrecy Act would be included when it comes to the general parliamentary elections—I note that he is nodding in response to that, and I appreciate it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, the Ballot Secrecy Act was intended to establish free and fair elections, cover aspects of equality and give power to presiding officers to intervene where actions were inappropriate. In my time of progressing what was the first Private Member’s Bill from this House in four years to complete its passage and only the third in 15 years, I learned a lot about the processes that Private Members’ Bills go through in the House. It is tortuous, unnecessarily long and in some cases distinctly disadvantageous to the proposer of the legislation as regards the manner in which amendments from government are considered and the like. I suggest that either the effective second Chamber group of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, should look at the way we operate, or some committee should do so. Even having navigated the way through the difficulties in the House, Bills from this House go to the bottom of the queue in the House of Commons, whereas Bills from the House of Commons go to the top of the queue in the House of Lords. It seems an unacceptable variation in the process; therefore there are several needs for change in relation to this.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, touched on the question of whether the Bill was necessary. As I indicated in the debate on 15 July last year, in which others here participated, it was unclear whether the officials’ advice that it was not necessary to pass my Bill or the Electoral Commission’s broad advice that it was necessary at that stage was a matter for question. Counsel’s opinion came down quite clearly in favour of a need to change the law. However, out of curiosity I would just like to know whether the Minister can say, now or at a later stage, at which point the officials in the department received the Electoral Commission’s guidance. It is relevant to the process of the Bill and the views expressed to Ministers, to officials and to others on the ministerial write-round. I will not go into great detail at this point about my concerns about the handling of that; I put them in writing to the Minister and have received a reply. I have been offered a meeting, which, as yet, has not been taken up. I understand, given the ill health of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the circumstances of these SIs and so on, that things are necessarily delayed. However, I am concerned about the aspect not of the decision-making process but of the accuracy and consistency of the advice that has been given to Ministers on the ministerial write-round.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument applies measures relating to undue influence to police and crime commissioner elections, as well recall petitions and local referenda in England. These provisions seek to provide greater clarity on this offence, including by specifically covering intimidation.
Undue influence and any practice involving intimidation have no place in our voting system. If we want to call our elections free and fair, we must act proactively to stop those who seek to unfairly influence how others vote. It is right that we update the definition of undue influence to accommodate a modern understanding of the phrase in the statute book. The current law was brought into force 40 years ago, and 100% of the respondents to the Protecting the Debate White Paper agreed that a clear definition should be adopted. We welcome this update of the definition of undue influence. It is clear language—not quite the heavenly language my noble friend Lord Jones referred to—and this point was well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who has been a great champion and campaigner in this area.
In addition, we welcome provisions to ensure that disqualification orders are effectively enforced and that those served with them cannot stand in relevant elections. We also support the implementation of the Ballot Secrecy Act to the elections covered in this regulation. Alongside that, we welcome clarity on whether a commonly used name can be used on nomination papers.
I want to press the Minister, given that these regulations include provisions relating to influencing individuals to sign petitions: can he explain how these will be applied to e-petitions and can he provide an update on the application of the broader intimidation offences under the Elections Act? Have any charges resulted from these new offences? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who have participated in what is turning out to be a relatively short debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for his invitation to Wales; I would be more than happy to visit at any time, and look forward to the very warm welcome which he described. With regard to translation, which I think was the core point of what he asked, as per our existing practice, Welsh forms have been translated by Welsh translation services.
On the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I guess that, a few years ago, we would have been in a very different place today, on the eve of two parliamentary by-elections. I think the point he made is incredibly important. It would be wrong for me to do anything other than say that I will come back to him, which I am very happy to do in writing.
My noble friend Lord Hayward also commented on the need to bring election law all together and update it. From a personal point of view, I am very much with him on that. Having had more than three decades in front-line politics, I am aware that there may well be a need for change going forward. I will come back to him in writing, because that is the right thing to do.
My noble friend Lord Hayward asked for clarification on there being no reference to general elections in this SI. For the record, let me make it very clear that the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 applied the new offences to UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England, as well as to elections in Northern Ireland. These regulations ensure the effective implementation of the Act by extending ballot secrecy offences to police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, recall petitions, and local government council tax and neighbourhood planning referenda in England. This is why the Explanatory Notes for the SI do not reference UK parliamentary elections.
Regarding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Khan, I have not got that information in front of me, but I am more than happy to write to him with an explanation.
In conclusion, these regulations are vital to ensure that the changes already agreed in primary legislation are applied to the relevant electoral conduct rules as intended. Failure to do so would create divergence across reserved electoral law, creating confusion instead of clarity. It would be a negative outcome for electors, as well as for candidates, campaigners and elected office holders, as applying these measures to the relevant election rules will strengthen the integrity of voting and offer further protection to those who wish to take part in public life. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations.
Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Mott
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 July be approved.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, in moving the Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023 I will speak also to the Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.
This Government are committed to protecting the integrity of our democratic processes and we have delivered on that commitment. Last year, Parliament passed the Elections Act, which includes changes to ensure that UK elections remain secure, fair and modern. Today, I am delighted to bring forward two statutory instruments which flow from that Act. The changes made by these instruments are very similar, so I intend to talk through both in parallel. Taken together, the instruments provide a single package of measures covering non-devolved elections in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Elections Act amended the franchise to reflect the UK’s new relationship with the EU and protect the rights of UK citizens living in EU countries. This moved us to the principle of a mutual grant of rights, through agreements with individual EU member states. Qualifying EU citizens from EU member states that have bilateral agreements with the UK will have the right to vote and stand in relevant elections. We also preserved the existing rights of all EU citizens who chose to make the UK their home prior to the end of the implementation period. As such, EU citizens with retained rights will continue to have the right to vote and stand. The long-standing voting rights of Irish citizens remain unchanged. Likewise, the voting rights of Maltese and Cypriot citizens, as Commonwealth citizens, are not affected by these changes.
These instruments provide for a new registration process for EU citizens which includes clear information about the new eligibility criteria for electors. Persons applying under the retained rights criteria will have to make a legal declaration that they have been legally resident in the UK since the end of the implementation period. Registration officers will be able to accept this declaration as sufficient evidence of eligibility or, if they deem necessary, will be able to require further information and evidence from the individual to make a determination.
Electoral registration officers have a legal duty to ensure that the electoral register remains accurate, so the instruments require them to conduct a one-time review to determine eligibility of all registered EU citizens. It may be helpful to note that the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland is the registration officer for the whole of Northern Ireland, and therefore this process will be conducted by them. This bespoke eligibility review process is designed to be fair and transparent for review subjects and to minimise burdens on registration officers. As far as possible, it has been based on and benchmarked against existing practice and processes.
Initially, registration officers will use data already available to them to confirm an elector’s continued eligibility without the need for an elector to take any action. Where a registration officer is unable to confirm eligibility using existing data, this instrument requires them to contact the elector to request the information necessary to determine eligibility. In the event of no response, a registration officer must make at least three attempts to contact the elector in writing, and at least one attempt to contact them in person, before they may determine them to be ineligible. All those reviewed will be notified of the franchise change and the review outcome, with the contents of all review communications prescribed for consistency. Where a person is deemed ineligible and removed from the register on the basis of non-response, they will be invited to reapply if they believe they are eligible to do so. We anticipate that the end-to-end review process will take up to three months to complete. Registration officers will have a nine-month implementation window from 7 May 2024 to 31 January 2025 to undertake the one-time review.
Finally, the SI requires registration officers in England and Wales to report on the operation of the review process to the Electoral Commission upon completion. The Secretary of State will write to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to request similar data.
This franchise change will apply only to polls which are non-devolved. These instruments cover all local elections in England, and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, as well as local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. Secondary arrangements to implement candidacy changes in England are being taken forward in other statutory instruments. The changes will update nomination forms to reflect the new qualification criteria for EU citizens. Candidacy changes for Northern Ireland were implemented in the Elections Act. In practice, candidacy processes at local and Assembly elections will not change significantly. I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, our debates on the Elections Act last year highlighted a number of inconsistencies with the franchise. The rights of Irish citizens, and, for example, Maltese and Cypriot citizens as members of the Commonwealth, are protected, but the rights of some EU citizens who live and work here and pay their taxes here, and who may do so in future, are not properly respected. It is time to look fundamentally at the issues of the franchise, as we are now going backwards with post-Brexit changes.
The Government estimate that under the new criteria around 2 million EU citizens will be verified and remain on the electoral register, but around 160,000 EU citizens will be removed from that register and will lose their right to vote in local elections in England and Northern Ireland. EU citizens moving here in future will never have such rights. It seems to me that permanent residency should really be the basis for voting, at the very least in local elections, and that we need to look at the rights of all EU citizens in the same way as we do for Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens.
The franchise is increasingly inconsistent, and therefore confusing, in different parts of the UK, and none of these measures provide any more clarity on these issues. Will the Minister accept that there should be a proper government-led consultation on the principles of the franchise for voting at different levels?
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, in the previous debate, I referred to a letter that I had written to my noble friend Lady Scott where I raised a number of electoral issues. I mentioned this when we debated other SIs in the Moses Room a few weeks ago, when I said that I had received replies to questions that I had not asked. One was on a subject covered by this statutory instrument.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, these instruments would implement provisions in the Act to remove the automatic right of EU citizens to vote and stand in local elections in England and PCC elections in England and Wales.
After their implementation, only EU citizens from countries that currently have a bilateral treaty with the UK or citizens lawfully resident in the UK before 2021 would have the right to vote and stand. Of the 2.1 million EU citizens affected in England, around 160,000 are expected to be removed from the register—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
As a principle, Labour believes that people who contribute to society, work hard and pay their taxes should have some say in decisions being made for their community. This is about not just who can vote but devolving power to communities so that they have a say over local decisions. Current rights give EU citizens the power to vote and stand in local elections, regardless of immigration-based eligibility criteria. However, we recognise that the status quo around decision-making cannot continue following our departure from the EU and we will not oppose the regulations today.
Can I press the Minister on the important franchise changes due to come into effect from 7 May 2024? If a general election takes place prior to this, will this timescale remain feasible? Can the Minister also provide an update on the guidance being prepared for electoral registration officers? The Explanatory Memorandum states that it will be completed by the end of 2023.
My final point was made also by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. What work are the Government doing with local authorities to ensure that the 160,000 EU citizens affected have clear guidance on how they can become permanent citizens and change their criteria in order to vote?
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lord Hayward for taking part in this debate. I would like to add some explanation in light of one or two of the issues that have been raised.
First, to pick up on my noble friend Lord Hayward’s point about neighbourhood plan referendums, I am happy to arrange that meeting with officials after this debate and to look into that further. My noble friend and I have discussed it at some length in the past few weeks and it seems to me that a very small tweak is required to make it more straightforward. I am happy to facilitate that after today.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, made some very important points on preparation and dates, and I will come back to him on the specifics. Obviously, it is not in the gift of your Lordships’ House to call a general election; nevertheless, it is very important to make sure that everything is ready and that all electoral registration staff are completely prepared, were that to happen.
Probably the most substantive issue raised in the debate was that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on EU citizens. Parliament resolved to update the electoral franchise in the Elections Act 2020, and the UK Government’s position remains unchanged: the right to reside in the UK should not automatically confer the right to participate in our democratic processes. Now that we have left the European Union, the right to vote and stand in local elections, which we granted as a consequence of our EU membership, cannot continue. The parliamentary franchise is rightly restricted to British citizens and those with the closest historic links to our country. As noble Lords are aware, there has never been a general right for European nationals to vote in parliamentary elections. I am happy to write to the noble Lord giving more detail, and I know he has a very strong view on this, but I would now like to close the discussion.
I know that all Members of the House support these instruments enabling us to enact Parliament’s duty to uphold the franchise and ensure that we continue to meet our commitment to respect the rights of EU citizens who have made their home in the UK. I am therefore pleased to be able to introduce these measures. I beg to move.
Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Services Exclusions) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 July be approved.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument will help to ensure that seamless internal trade is maintained for the shared prosperity and welfare of people and businesses across all four nations of the UK. It will enable the effective operation of services regulation in the United Kingdom by adding, amending and removing service sectors excluded from the market access principles in Part 2 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—the UKIM Act. I will cover both the purpose and impacts of the instrument in detail, starting with the former.
The UK internal market plays a vital role in maintaining equality of opportunity and certainty for businesses, no matter where they are in the UK, by ensuring that there is an internal market where the free flow of goods and services is protected across the whole of the UK. The UKIM Act was introduced to preserve the United Kingdom’s internal market as powers previously exercised by the EU returned to the UK.
The Act establishes two market access principles: mutual recognition and non-discrimination in relation to goods and services. The principle of mutual recognition means that service providers, such as businesses, that meet authorisation requirements to provide their service in one part of the UK can provide their service in other parts of the UK without having to comply with any additional authorisations or requirements. Non-discrimination prevents service providers being discriminated against, based on where they are from in the UK. For example, if, under a regulatory requirement, a regulator requires a service provider to pay a higher fee because they are from another UK nation, this could be discriminatory.
The Act’s market access principles will apply only to new or substantively amended authorisation or regulatory requirements for providing services introduced after 31 December 2020. For example, a new licensing requirement for accountancy services would be in scope of both the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles of the UKIM Act, if it were enacted on or after this date.
However, service sectors listed under either or both parts of Schedule 2, on services exclusions relating to mutual recognition or non-discrimination, are not within scope of those market access principles. The market access principles additionally do not apply where the requirement is a response to a public health emergency or there is a legitimate aim for it, as set out in the Act.
In the UKIM Act, there is a power under Section 18(2) to amend Schedule 2. During the passage of the Act through Parliament, this Government gave a commitment to review and further develop the list of services exclusions after the Act received Royal Assent. This commitment was made because the list in Schedule 2 is mainly based on exclusions in the most relevant pre-UKIM Act regulatory framework, the Provision of Services Regulations 2009, which is retained EU law. The exclusions in Schedule 2 were therefore based on the sectors originally excluded with intra-EU trade in mind, rather than intra-UK trade.
In February 2021, the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy publicly consulted on whether the existing services exclusions were fit for purpose in a post-EU exit context. The consultation had three main aims: first, to establish whether there were any instances in which regulators previously disapplied the existing mutual recognition requirement to recognise authorisations under the previous retained EU law; secondly, to establish whether any other changes needed to be made to the services excluded in Schedule 2 to better reflect the UK’s circumstances post EU-exit; and finally, to ask for any other ways in which the internal market for services could be further strengthened.
Following my department’s assessment of the consultation responses, including engagement with other government departments and the devolved Governments, this statutory instrument is making the following changes. First, it will add exclusions from the mutual recognition principle for services for the supply of gas, electricity and water, sewerage and waste sector services, construction and operation of heat networks and qualifications-awarding services. This change will mainly reflect how these sectors currently operate. These exclusions will maintain the status quo in areas where mutual recognition was not already in operation, to reflect long-standing existing regulatory arrangements in the UK. Without these exclusions, regulators in the gas and electricity supply sector would not be able to regulate as they have done previously, for example, as they would have to accept authorisations from another part of the UK. Evidence from the consultation responses highlighted that this could have a harmful impact on these sectors, causing consumer protection and public safety issues due to the different standards and systems in the parts of the UK. Not making these modifications to the existing exclusions schedule could also lead to higher regulatory costs, as it would instigate market framework changes that industry is not prepared for.
Secondly, this statutory instrument will also amend the existing exclusion relating to social services. This change will not alter the scope of the exclusion but will make it clear that it applies to children’s social care and childcare services provided by both private and public providers.
Finally, this statutory instrument will remove the existing exclusions for financial services, electronic communications services, statutory audit services, postal services, and services of temporary work agencies. Our view is that exclusions are not needed in areas where the UKIM Act market access principles will have little to no impact on how the service is regulated or provided in the UK. This is because the sectors either are reserved or already currently operate on a UK-wide basis. Removing these exclusions and making the service in question subject to the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles should therefore have little impact on how this service is provided in the UK. Detail on these changes can be found in the government response to the consultation, published in July 2022.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I was not involved with the legislation for the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and I have to admit that, even after reading the Explanatory Notes, much of this SI seemed to me more like a Rubik’s cube, so I was appreciative of the clarifications from the Minister.
To a non-expert like me, the SI appeared at first glance to be essentially technical tidying, but I can also see that it tangles with the underlying tensions between the UK Internal Market Act and the common frameworks—that is to say, the intergovernmental agreements that set out how the Governments of the UK nations will work together to manage regulatory divergence in policy areas that were formerly governed at EU level. That leads me to be a little concerned, at least, that the instrument before us received the formal consent only of the Welsh Government. I have no idea whether that is because of objections by Scotland and Northern Ireland, simple oversight or, perhaps, in the case of Northern Ireland, because its Assembly is unable to sit. Perhaps the Minister might expand on that and explain to us why that formal consent was not given, because on the surface it is certainly a little troubling. I remember warning some colleagues involved in the internal market Act when it was passed that it created the likelihood of confusion and tension between Westminster and the devolved authorities, so I am wondering whether this is an instance of that.
I am also trying to understand what the SI will do on a day-to-day basis for the workforces that it names and what the impact will be on their potential customers. I can understand the removing of the exclusions for financial services providers; I assume that it has a positive impact on competition. But I wonder if there was any consideration that it might have a detrimental impact on the provision of local services. We have always had a great problem in financial services stopping everything being either sucked into London or the major centres and in making sure there is local activity across the whole United Kingdom.
I am struggling to understand the consequences of amending social services exclusions. It is very hard to understand why the qualifications for someone who works in social services should differ and whether this reflects some deeper issues within social service provision.
But I am most mystified by the exclusions that have been introduced for what I will group together as qualified utility engineers. They are now excluded from mutual recognition and the non-discrimination principle. We are in a period where we know we have to focus on net zero. That creates dramatic change in the way energy is provided. There are issues of introducing insulation as rapidly as possible across the country and issues with utilities—for example, shortages of reservoirs and transport. All these individuals will apparently be excluded from mutual recognition and non-discrimination. Could the Minister explain what the day-to-day impact is of that exclusion decision?
I thank the Minister and once again apologise for my lack of familiarity with the underlying legislation. It would certainly help in some of these areas to have some further clarification.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for the image of a Rubik’s cube in looking at this legislation. I welcome the detail that has been provided; it has been very helpful and, as a result, I will keep my comments fairly brief. I thank the officials who have been involved in the process and the Minister for his detailed explanation.
The major concern I want to raise is that, despite the detailed consultation—I am very pleased to see the extent to which that was undertaken—it is troubling that consent was only achieved with Welsh Ministers and not Scottish Ministers. Obviously, the Written Ministerial Statement was laid before the Summer Recess, which was a significant time ago now, and I wondered whether there have been any more conversations between those bodies to seek further reassurance about the progress of this.
I have a specific question. The Scottish Government made a request in relation to heat network authorisations. Can I seek clarification that that has been incorporated into this SI?
I too would like to ask if the noble Earl is able to give us a more detailed explanation of why consent was not forthcoming. As we know, the Scottish Government did not consent to the UKIM Act. Could the Minister explain whether this is the reason? Has he had any explanation of the reasons? Is there a reflection of any concern with the content of the SI as a result? We obviously have to note the continued absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. We want to explore with the Minister if that is seen as one of the reasons consent was not forthcoming.
This speaks to a broader concern, which we have expressed on many occasions, about the hoarding of power in Westminster. This is still seen as an issue. Perhaps the lack of progress on an agreement on a range of common frameworks with the devolved Administrations, and the failure to bring this forward, undermines the co-operative working with the DAs.
In terms of review, paragraph 14.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum mentions a review of the Act’s amendment powers, which “must take place” between the third and fifth anniversaries of the passing of the legislation. Could the Minister provide an update on this? Would it be reasonable to assume that there will be further review towards the end of the period stated? If this is the case, has work already begun to detail what further amendments might be required?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate on this instrument. I agree that it is a very technical SI, and I would like to answer some of the detailed questions properly in writing. I have a lot of the detail here, but I know that time is short, and we want to get on with it. A number of very valuable points have been made, and I will endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability.
The provisions of the UKIM Act naturally bring up historic opposition, but I hope that the legislation that we are looking to pass today will be considered on its own merits in relation to protecting the UK internal market. As a reminder, the instrument will enable the effective operation of services regulation in the UK by adding, amending and removing service sectors excluded from the market access principles in Part 2 of the UKIM Act to reflect current regulatory practice in the UK.
This instrument is a direct result of a public consultation and therefore a rare amendment to the exclusions list, following the intention to make the scope of the UKIM Act better support intra-UK trade. It continues to guarantee that services connected with the supply or production of gas and electricity can be regulated separately in the parts of the UK. This will ensure regulation, mainly in environmentally sensitive areas, can continue without the application of the UKIM Act’s market access principles maintaining how the service is provided or regulated in parts of the UK. It will also ensure the services excluded in Schedule 2 better reflect the UK’s circumstances post-EU exit by removing exclusions which are no longer necessary in this new context.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Could I ask for clarification? If you are one of the relevant engineers, who is excluded, and you move, do you need to get another set of qualifications? I want to clarify that that is the way this has gone.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I do not believe that that is the case, but I will confirm that.
On the issue of the devolved Administrations and consent, there was absolutely no intention to pass this SI without getting everybody’s consent. Our officials have worked continuously throughout this process with Ministers and officials to bring them along. It is extremely gratifying that the Welsh Government accepted everything. The situation in Scotland is slightly different. There was a fairly robust defence of why they did not want the UKIM Act in the first place. I think that has obviously had an impact. However, we have accepted some of the exclusions they wanted put in.
Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
That this House regrets that (1) the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulations 2023, and (2) the Windsor Framework (Plant Health) Regulations 2023, have been introduced under a truncated timetable and with no public consultation despite their constitutional and political significance in facilitating the application of EU laws to the United Kingdom; fail to secure unfettered trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; cause trade diversion; and are contrary to the objectives of the Northern Ireland Protocol listed in Article 1(2).
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I want to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to debate and scrutinise measures that have profound political and constitutional ramifications for the union. Otherwise, the Government would have pushed these measures through without any debate.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its 51st Report, expressed concern about the lack of an impact assessment or, as it put it, “even basic information”, saying that
“it undermines Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the legislation effectively”.
It regretted that the retail movement scheme came into force during the recess, denying Parliament the opportunity to form a view before it was launched—something of a recurring theme when it comes to these Windsor Framework SIs. It also expressed concern about the truncated timetable. On the lack of consultation, it again criticised the Government for failing to consult formally on the details. Given the import of these regulations and their impact across the board on everyone in Northern Ireland, it beggars belief that the Government have not undertaken a formal consultation on the contents of these SIs and others.
The protocol/Windsor Framework has already led to the inevitable consequence of the collapse of the Assembly and other institutions, given that it breaches the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement. It is the greatest irony that proponents of the protocol claim to be great protectors of the 1998 agreement, yet they support measures which drive a coach and horses through that agreement. Indeed, rigorous implementors of the protocol in other Northern Ireland political parties—the SDLP, Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party—all penned a letter calling for its “rigorous implementation”. They did not see anything wrong with its flaws, slavishly following the line of the EU. Yet now everyone—including them, it seems—agrees with us that change is necessary.
Make no mistake: the regulations before the House this evening, along with others, establish a regulatory and customs border in the Irish Sea, with Northern Ireland subject to EU jurisdiction in over 300 areas fundamental to our economy. They give effect to EU regulation 2023/1231. This is EU law which now governs internal UK trade. The EU now has the final say over the law on internal trade within the United Kingdom, and if, at some point in the future, it decides to change it, it can.
Contrary to the facts, we are told that this so-called green lane removes the Irish Sea border. In fact, these regulations require traders, trading within the United Kingdom, to have an export number, become a trusted trader, complete customs and SPS paperwork, go through a border control post and be subject to 10% identity checks on goods that are moved—and that is only for the so-called green lane. It is, in fact, a slightly less red lane. It is certainly not the unfettered access promised by the Prime Minister because, if it were, there would be no need for any of this.
Of course, it is not just the extra costs of all of this for business, which will be passed on to consumers in Northern Ireland; we also have the costs to the taxpayer through the trader support service and other schemes set up to implement the Irish Sea border. Can the Minister furnish us with the figures—the costs of all those schemes? Are they intended to be permanent or are they going to be phased out?
The new arrangements have also caused trade diversion, which was supposed to be one of the reasons to implement Article 16 of the protocol in the first place. Although designed primarily to benefit big retailers, the new arrangements have already led to one announcing that it was restructuring its supply chains to move as much as possible of what previously came from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, so that after 1 October it comes from Irish Republic. If anyone is any doubt about the effects of the Windsor Framework, I refer them to the report of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ House on the Windsor Framework. It concluded that the Windsor Framework rendered the situation worse in many areas compared with what has been experienced in reality, on the ground, up to now.
The original protocol was unworkable and could not be implemented without doing major damage to Northern Ireland’s economy. That led to grace periods and easements. Now these grace periods and easements are done away with, to be replaced with the more burdensome provisions of the Windsor Framework. Those are the conclusions of the sub-committee. Despite all of this, however, we have been told, “Don’t worry— 1 October has come and the sky hasn’t fallen in”. Of course, that ignores the restructuring of supply chains to try to shift as much as possible of what previously came from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, as I have already referred to.
However, clearly worried about how things would look if fully implemented on day 1, the Government have, in fact, in the regulations before us, introduced quite an extraordinary measure to camouflage the reality of what will happen when red/green lanes are fully implemented. That measure is in Regulation 11(2). It is extraordinary because it mixes considerations that pertain to risk, such as risk of disease and so on, with other considerations that have nothing to do with risk but instead pertain to the capacity to carry out checks—to the number of staff there may be and the structures that will be built or not built. Checks can therefore be reduced or eliminated according to the capacity to carry them out. That is important because there is no capacity to carry out such checks at the moment in Larne, Warrenpoint and Foyle. The only new border control post capacity that has been built is in Belfast. Things will not come to a head, in fact, until 2025, when the new border control posts will have been built.
The Government are easing things in, making sure that the real effects are not felt immediately. Once we get to 2025—if not before, when conducting the risk assessment—the competent authorities will be able to say that they have the capacity to conduct fully all the checks. Then we will start to see the real consequences of the sea border. That of course leaves aside the fact that a lot of companies whose goods will end up staying in Northern Ireland—so intra-UK trade—will have to use the red lanes, which are subject to the entire panoply of EU external border customs controls.
These regulations do not do what the Government claim they do. They are in fact another piece of the Irish Sea border superstructure under the Windsor Framework protocol. As such, it is contrary to Northern Ireland’s constitutional position, as demonstrated through the courts, where, in relation to a key building block of statehood—internal trade—the Act of Union has, according to the courts, been set aside. The creation of a customs border—with Great Britain now designated, in law, as a third country vis-à-vis Northern Ireland—as well as regulatory borders are inconsistent with Northern Ireland’s place as a full, legal and economic part of the United Kingdom.
As Jeffrey Donaldson said at our party conference at the weekend,
“the imposition of a customs border on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and remaining within the UK Internal market, was unnecessary and unacceptable in 2019. It was unnecessary and unacceptable in 2021 and … it is unnecessary and unacceptable now”.
It will have to go. These measures are contrary, ironically, even to the stated objective of the protocol itself, which states in Article 1(2) that
“This Protocol respects the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom”.
The courts have ruled that it does not. The framework is contrary to democratic norms, since we are now subject to EU law in 300 areas without ever having had a say or vote in the matter. Such a denial of sovereignty and democracy is a blot and stain of shame on the entire United Kingdom. This taxation without representation is something that many so-called Brexiteers will regret in the years to come, as others take advantage of the need to move the whole of the United Kingdom closer to the European Union. It is, of course, also contrary to the New Decade, New Approach agreement of January 2020, which established that the Government would fully restore Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market of the United Kingdom.
There is a lot of talk about the political process and the time that it has taken to deal with these matters in Northern Ireland. Let me remind your Lordships’ House that unionists have been urging progress for change for years. Let us remember the moment when the EU started to instigate Article 16 because it did not want the vaccines for Northern Ireland to come over the border from the Irish Republic. That was January and February 2021. We have waited patiently for successive Governments to deliver on the promises and pledges that they made—including the current Prime Minister. We summarised those pledges in our seven tests, which are in fact merely iterations of these prime ministerial commitments. When there is little or no political engagement at the proper level, and it is instead left primarily to civil servants and advisers to carry the load, it is little wonder that there is so little progress. If the institutions are to be restored, then let us restore the agreements that established them and let them operate as they were set up to do. They cannot operate if there is no radical, meaningful change to the Windsor Framework/protocol.
The Assembly has been changed into a different model, where large swathes of powers are no longer under its or Westminster’s control—not under the control of anyone who represents Northern Ireland either in the Assembly or in Parliament. Instead, those powers have been handed over to a foreign political entity, acting in its interests, and which is designed eventually to bring about an all-Ireland economy. No one can reasonably argue that unionists should simply shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, never mind, we’ll just move on”. Republicans would not do that; indeed, they demonstrated that when they said that there could not even be an extra camera on the Irish land border. No one can reasonably argue that unionists should just ignore the setting aside of the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement. The Windsor Framework and the protocol tear up the principle of consent and trash the east-west relationship —strand 3—elevating and giving priority instead to the strand 2 relationship, the north-south dimension.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn, who has set the whole thing out very succinctly, and I hope that the Minister has been listening. When these regulations were published, we immediately saw that they were of huge political importance, not least because they give effect to EU Regulation 2023/1231, which seeks to govern what happens within the United Kingdom— the movement of goods within a country that is not a member state. Specifically, the regulations govern what happens to goods leaving one part of the United Kingdom, namely Great Britain, and entering another part of the United Kingdom, namely Northern Ireland, with the purpose of giving effect to an international customs and SPS border, splitting our country in two. This statute is without precedent, as far as I am aware, anywhere in the world and constitutes the ultimate humiliation of the United Kingdom. It not only blatantly disrespects the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and the essential state functions of the United Kingdom, but it also actively seeks to undermine them.
The EU regulation does not remove any sense of border in the Irish Sea, which is what we were told by the Prime Minister would be secured by Windsor. Rather, it affirms the presence of the border and offers two different border experiences. The removal of the border is not contemplated at any point. Both border experiences are the same in the sense that they both require those wishing to trade to have an export number, to fill in customs and SPS documents and to be subject to 100% documentary checks and at least 5% to 10% identity checks and some physical checks at border control posts. The real presenting distinction is not between one border experience and the other, but rather between these border experiences compared with movements within an internal market, as in GB, France, Japan, Australia et cetera, which, by definition, involves no customs or SPS fettering and thus no border experience at all.
The retail movement and plant health regulations both provide a means of accessing one of the border experiences provided by EU Regulation 2023/1231, which is less disruptive than the default border experience which the EU reserves the right to impose through Article 14. We pointed out in our submission that, contrary to government statements that the Windsor Framework provided unfettered access to and from Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom internal market, these regulations affirm an arrangement that actually accepts an ongoing border in the Irish Sea and the fact that Northern Ireland has not been reconnected with the UK internal market.
Our submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was published by the committee in full and the Government issued a response, which was also published by the committee. I would like to look at the Government’s response. The first thing to say is that they do not actually disagree with our analysis, although they seek to give the term “internal market” a new meaning. On EU Regulation 1231/2023, they state:
“This regulation sets out specific rules relating to the entry into NI from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of retail goods, plants for planting, seed potatoes, machinery and certain vehicles operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, as well as non-commercial movements of certain pet animals into NI”.
There you have it: the Government accept a border, in that the EU makes rules for Northern Ireland that do not apply to GB, such that a border must rest between them, where one set of rules ends and another set of rules starts.
The Government then say:
“The SPS Regulation also disapplies more than 60 provisions of EU law in respect of retail agri-food goods moving into NI under the Scheme, with UK standards to apply in their place, ensuring that the same products available on the shelves in Great Britain can be sold in Northern Ireland”.
That applies to those who access the alternative, less disruptive border arrangement, but critically the Government do not claim that all EU legal requirements, and thus the border, are removed. EU rules continue to apply, and thus the border continues to apply.
The Government then say:
“The Windsor Framework achieves a longstanding UK Government objective to provide for an effective set of trading arrangements for goods remaining within the United Kingdom, as part of supporting the UK internal market. Through its arrangements, it supports the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market, freeing movements of unnecessary paperwork, checks and complex certification requirements. Instead, the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme will enable consignments to move using a single remotely approved digital certificate, rather than individual certification at product level with inspections required for each certificate under the original Northern Ireland Protocol”.
Again, while this sounds positive, it does not actually call into question anything that we have said, beyond its misapplication of the term “internal market”.
Yes, the regulations before us today seek to access the alternative and less disruptive border experience that will make trade smoother than will be the case for goods being traded in the so-called red lane, but they still involve our looking at goods moving across a customs and SPS border and not the removal of the border and reintegration of Northern Ireland in the UK internal market. In that sense, while the Government talk about promoting “the smooth flow” of goods within the internal market, they are deploying the term “internal market” in a way that destroys the concept of an internal market.
Terms have meanings, and any attempt to drag an established term with an established meaning into a new context in the hope that the general public will not realise that what we are actually looking at no longer is an internal market in any credible sense but something entirely different must be rejected. An internal market is a market that involves the free movement of goods without the fettering of a customs or SPS border with border control posts. These regulations are not part of an attempt to promote smooth trade within the UK internal market; they are about trying to promote smoother trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland now that they are no longer part of the same internal market for goods. We can pretend that the UK internal market for goods still exists, but it does not. It urgently needs to be recreated, with the restoration of Article 6 of the Act of Union.
Our point to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and to this House is that these regulations are of immense political and constitutional importance, because they affirm the splitting of our country into two, and the Government’s response does not question that. Once one allows for the verbal gymnastics involved in the Government’s redesignation of the term “internal market”, and looks past this terminological sleight of hand to the reality that they actually describe, it is plain that all that is on offer is an alternative border experience that makes the border less economically disruptive than would otherwise be the case.
We made a number of points that the Government did not respond to, presumably because they were not in a position to contradict us. First, we pointed out that at the heart of EU Regulation 1231/2023 is Article 14, in which the EU asserts the right to withdraw the alternative border experience, leaving us with just the most disruptive border experience. Moreover, in understanding this we must remember that it has never offered an alternative border experience for all goods, such that they already insist that a significant proportion of products is already subject to the most disruptive border experience.
In this regard two points must be understood. At the moment, the EU is in no position to use its Article 14 rights, because the border control posts that effectively divide the country into two will not be completed until the end of 2025—my noble friend Lord Dodds has already made reference to that. Moreover, it is also really important to understand that, although the red lane is currently supposedly being operated, there is very limited capacity to enforce it because the border control posts are not properly in place. It is currently the worst kept secret that border enforcement has had to be suspended in relation to triangular trade.
In seeking to assess the disruptive implications of the border at the moment, we also need to call out Regulation 11 in the retail movement scheme regulations. Regulation 11 is an extraordinary provision. It asks officials to conduct a risk assessment, prior to conducting checks at the border, that in addition to asking questions about risk also asks questions that, far from being concerned with avoiding risk, provide grounds for ignoring it. Specifically, in making a judgment about whether there is a risk, the regulations ask officials to ask whether they have the capacity to conduct checks to confirm their suspicions. The plain implication is that, even if officials believe that there is a risk, they can ignore it if they do not have capacity to deal with it. This has presumably been inserted to give people the impression that, from 1 October, the Windsor Framework is far less disruptive than is actually the case, something the Government plans that we should not experience until July 2025—it will be too late then —when the border control posts are completed. I suspect that they then intend to move an SI amending Regulation 11, which I am sure will greatly relieve the EU.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Given what my noble friends Lord Morrow and Lord Dodds have said about the lack of border posts—it will be two years down the line before they are actually put in place—and what my noble friend Lord Morrow said about the lack of capacity for any level of enforcement at the moment, does it not therefore beggar belief that a government Minister said this week that we now have a smooth flow of goods, and that that is the yardstick against which this is based, two years away from any implementation?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I thank my noble friend Lord Weir for making that point. I think the Government are now on a mission to try to convince not only themselves but the watching public that all is well. Let me state quite categorically in your Lordships’ House today that all is not well, and it is not going to get better until the Government grasp the situation. We can turn our heads and look the other way, and let on that we do not see or understand, but one day we will understand and, by then, a lot of damage will unfortunately have been done.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I genuinely congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, on putting down this regret Motion and giving us the opportunity to discuss something that, as he said, needs more discussion. I thought the submission from the Democratic Unionist Party to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was well worth a read. I hope that noble Lords who are here, and the very many who are not and never seem to come for anything to do with Northern Ireland, have read it. It is a clear indictment of what is wrong with the Windsor Framework.
Three times the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said it notes that these submissions reflect the views of the DUP and that no other submissions were received—as if somehow that implied that this was not very important. The regulations were laid during the summer. Some of us, even in this place, who have been in Parliament for a very long time find it quite difficult to know exactly when SIs are laid, how they are put forward and when things have to be in by. How does anyone expect the average small business, small shop or trader in Northern Ireland to understand what is going on in the way we need to in this place to get that scrutiny? I hope members of the committee did not mean to suggest in a derogatory way that, because there were not many submissions on these regulations, they are not important.
Both noble Lords have gone into great detail about how the regulations will work. It is very clear, the more we see what is happening with the Windsor Framework, that it has not been any kind of genuine reset or change to the protocol. It has been spun and spun as if it is something remarkable. I do not want again to go over when the Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland to tell us how wonderful this was. We are now seeing that detail, which was never looked at by many in the press lobby, who lapped up what the Prime Minister said to spin it to people in Northern Ireland that it would be brilliant. There has been criticism of Conservative and Labour Members of Parliament—but particularly Conservative and Unionist, who I would have thought would have more sense than to be taken in by a bland statement about how wonderful it would be. Many of those Members of Parliament said to move on to something different because they were fed up with it. That is not going to happen, and as the noble Lords have said, the deal is unworkable. It may not seem it at the moment, because of all that has been said about it being very early days and the structures not being in place. There is a feeling that we must be as careful as possible not to be too diligent because it should look like it is working normally, and that trade is moving back and forth just as if there had never been an Irish sea border.
Anyone reading the detail of these regulations can see clearly that the green lane is not a green lane. It is nonsensical to say that it is. It does not give unfettered access: that term is used, in my view—and, I hope, that of noble Lords—for free movement within a single market, which automatically would not have to face customs, SPS borders or border control posts.
The alternative arrangements made by the Windsor Framework are simply an alternative form of border arrangements. They do not remove, as the Prime Minister said they would, any sense of a border in the Irish Sea. This deals just with trade issues, not things such as people going as foot passengers to Cairnryan, as I mentioned in Committee the other week, and being told to get there early to go through border control. It is unbelievable that that can be said to people moving within their own country and that any Government would allow this to happen. It is extraordinary that this so-called Conservative and Unionist Government have allowed it.
As has been referred to, the very important European Union document from which all of this comes is EU regulation 2023/1231 of the Council of 14 June 2023 on
“specific rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of retail goods, plants for planting, seed potatoes, machinery and certain vehicles operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, as well as non-commercial movements of certain pet animals into Northern Ireland”.
Do not get me started on pets. I know that they are not the subject of this SI, but in the detail of this many-paged regulation, under article 12 there are three pages on what you will have to do to take your pet with you from London when visiting family in Northern Ireland. Yet the Prime Minister said there would be no problem—pets would be moved without you having to do a single thing. It is outrageous. It has not come into effect yet and, presumably, we will get a detailed SI on it, but I warn every pet owner in Northern Ireland that, if they think this is sorted, they are very mistaken.
The section of this document—which refers to all the issues we are discussing today—that is so shocking, as has been referred to already, is article 14. It will allow the European Union when it suits it, when the time is right and it wants something else to have a go at the United Kingdom for, to stop the green lane completely. It can say that, if we are not doing it properly—and it can always find some reason to say that it is not being done properly—it will stop the green lane.
We have left the EU—supposedly. Northern Ireland has not, as we know, although people had the same ballot paper, as I keep reminding people. It did not say: “If you vote to leave, you’re not actually going to leave. Only a little bit will leave, and the rest of you will stay within the EU”. This document shamelessly pertains to the Government not just of Northern Ireland but of the United Kingdom, to divide us into two. It is very different from all the other rules that apply to Northern Ireland, which apply to the EU as a whole and to Northern Ireland because it is part of the EU in that respect. However, this regulation applies just to the UK. Not only does it divide it in two, but it is far more humiliating than anything we were subject to as a member of the European Union because we have not made it.
Let us be honest. The European Union is still in charge of a substantial part of the United Kingdom and still governs Northern Ireland in many ways, this time without any involvement from us. I will not even mention the Stormont brake because it is not really relevant today, but it is complete and utter nonsense. Everyone knows that it is, but no one in the Government wants to admit it.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I am very pleased that he has raised his concerns about these regulations on retail and plant safety made under the Windsor Framework. I share those concerns on two main grounds.
First, there is the impact on trade, about which noble Lords have spoken. I draw your Lordships’ attention again to the report of the European Affairs Committee’s sub-committee on the Windsor Framework in respect of plant trade. It pointed out that plants such as prunus, hazel and hawthorn are on the prohibited list and so must use the red lane. As noble Lords know, these are vital to the hedgerows and ecosystems of both islands: the whole of the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, and of the UK. We ought to look at the problem as a whole.
My second concern is about who can send or receive these items. To the best of my knowledge, unless you are a registered provider you cannot use the green lane. This will eliminate internet providers, many of which are small businesses that rely on internet trade. It will undermine such providers’ competitiveness. Needless to say, I am also concerned about the impact of these regulations on producers in Northern Ireland, who will suffer a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the Dublin Government’s arrangements with the EU.
Finally, the constitutional status of Northern Ireland should prompt His Majesty’s Government to rethink the whole premise of the Windsor Framework. I understand that it is an easement, but it should be seen as an easement in some respects for certain areas of trade and certain traders. It should not be seen as an end in itself until the whole arrangement respects the constitutional status of Northern Ireland under both the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and the protocol. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to Article 1(2), but the whole protocol respects the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. We are undermining that by giving our consent to regulations that do not accept the premise of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement or even the Northern Ireland protocol.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, at paragraph 7.10 the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The Windsor Framework establishes a new, sustainable and durable framework for GB-NI trade … This instrument is required in order to implement the Framework”.
In coming to consider the regulations before us, it is possible to assess whether they are worth while only if noble Lords first ask what their purpose is? As other noble Lords have mentioned, both instruments relate to EU Regulation 2023/1231, whose object is to affirm and effect two different border arrangements, one of which is less destructive than the other. As such, the regulations are not about removing any sense of border in the Irish Sea, as the Prime Minister suggested, but rather they are concerned with providing two different border experiences. Notwithstanding their differences, they are both united in upholding a border that can be negotiated only with an export number, customs and SPS paperwork—the extent of which, as my colleagues have said, varies depending on which set of border arrangements you use—at least 100% documentary checks, 5% to 10% identity checks and some physical checks at border control posts. This plainly does not give effect to the reintegration of Northern Ireland into the UK single market but, rather, puts in place mechanisms to process the challenges arising from the fact that, rather than Northern Ireland being integrated and enjoying unfettered customs and SPS access, fettering is being put in place, with costs and profit-loss margins recalculated and commercial decisions revised accordingly.
Given that rather than removing the border, these regulations are concerned just with the details of the border arrangement and the extent of SPS border bureaucracy and cost, the question necessarily arises about whether it is right to support regulations that have the effect of affirming and effecting aspects of the border and EU Regulation 2023/1231. The question is: why have a border? What is it for? It is there to protect the integrity of the different legal regime that exists in Northern Ireland from what might come to Northern Ireland and from the different legal regime that exists in Great Britain. That confronts us with a central difficulty that some might be willing to paper over and ignore but that we unionists living in Northern Ireland have not the luxury of ignoring: the fact that every one of the different laws in Northern Ireland is a result of legislation that has been imposed on us by the EU without our consent.
The Windsor regulations are concerned with navigating the border and thus affirm it in at least two ways. First, they authenticate the border by making provision for dealing with it through EU regulation 1231, which is based on the existence of the border. Secondly, in engaging with the EU regulation that I have mentioned, the regulations inevitably authenticate the principles set out at the heart of Article 14: that the EU can impose a division on the body politic of the United Kingdom as exists between separate states. Some 700 different pieces of legislation have been imposed on us since January 2021, and of course over time the divergence will become greater as more new EU laws are passed and as more laws are made by Westminster. EU laws will be imposed on Northern Ireland without any representation or democratic accountability. I ask Members of your Lordships’ House whether that is acceptable? Would it be acceptable for England, Scotland or Wales? Why, then, for Northern Ireland? The border created by these regulations must be rejected not only because it places obstacles between Northern Ireland and our main market in GB but because it is a symbol of our denial of full democratic rights within the United Kingdom. It tells us, the long-suffering people who have recently endured a murderous campaign for over 30 years, that while the people of England, Wales and Scotland are worthy of the right to stand for election to make the laws to which they are subject, the people of Northern Ireland are not. The right that we should enjoy, being British, is having a common citizenship with every other citizen of the United Kingdom, but these regulations prove otherwise and therefore ought not to be accepted.
When we carefully consider what we are asked to support today in these regulations, I say so much for respecting the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and the consent principle which we were told lay at the very heart of the Belfast agreement. The agreement said
“it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.
It prohibits any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland that involves a shift away from government by the United Kingdom towards more government by the Republic of Ireland or the EU, save with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The words “any change” include the threat that often emanates from some Members opposite, that if unionists do not get back to Stormont, Northern Ireland will be governed by a cabal of UK and Republic of Ireland Ministers. In reality, the suggestion is to bin the central principle of the Belfast agreement—an international agreement, we are told, that numerous Governments across the world heralded as historic and must not be broken; it is set in stone. However, the Government have chosen to mark the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement by rejecting parts of it in agreeing the Windsor Framework and hoping that no one notices.
The Windsor Framework and its forerunner, the Northern Ireland protocol, were mischievously sold on falsehood. Learning the lessons of the past, unionists are fed up with successive Governments’ spin and will not be beguiled by it, but we will carefully scrutinise the substance. I notice that the spin continues—my noble friend Lord Weir referred to it—because the Government suggest that what is happening under the present arrangements, which started only on 1 October, is a resounding success, when, in fact, it has not been really implemented. That undermines credulity, but it satisfies the government spin-makers. We are told to welcome warmly the PM’s amazing achievement with Europe concerning the Windsor brake. However, it is a convoluted complaints procedure which, when the dressing is removed, has as much chance of succeeding as a genuine brake on Europe as refloating the “Titanic”.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I am not convinced that the regulations before us today are intra vires, for exactly the same reasons I doubt that the Windsor enforcement regulations are intra vires. I set out in detail the reason why I am unconvinced about this in my speech on the enforcement regulations when they were debated on 19 September, but the Minister did not respond at that time. I do not intend to repeat my speech of a month ago today in full and want to move on to address some additional points today, but I begin by drawing it again to the attention of the Government and asking for a response, not merely in relation to the enforcement regulations but the retail movement scheme regulations and the plant health regulations we are debating today.
In brief, while I acknowledge that the regulation-making powers are quite broad, they are not infinitely elastic, but held accountable to a fixed reality: the language of the protocol, now renamed the Windsor Framework. Both these sets of regulations have at their heart and give legal effect to EU Regulation 1231/ 2023. As we have heard, that affirms and effects the division of the UK into two, for the reasons that have been set out by the earlier speakers. This is a hugely important matter for the Windsor Framework retail movement scheme, plant health regulations, as well as the enforcement regulations 2023, because Article 1(2) of the protocol states, as I said on 19 September:
“‘This Protocol respects the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom’.
It is made directly effective in UK law by Section 7A(l)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, requiring that
‘all such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the withdrawal agreement’
are applied.
How can Article 1(2) be applied if attempts are made to implement other parts of the protocol that have the effect of actively disrespecting the territorial integrity and essential state functions of the United Kingdom that it insists on respecting? I can see that, if the regulation-making power were for the purpose of giving effect to certain articles of the protocol and not others, this vires difficulty may not necessarily apply. But the regulation-making power simply references the protocol/Windsor Framework, which means that it must be taken as a whole. That means that any Act that purports to implement it cannot contradict any part of the protocol, including Articles 1 and 2”. —[Official Report, 19/9/23; cols. GC 287-88.]
The same problem also arises because of the trade diversionary effects of both sets of regulations before us today and the trade diversionary implications of preparing for them. It is now known that the amount of product coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is significantly less than previously, with an increased number of empty trailers on the return journey. How can it be appropriate for the Government to introduce legislation within the confines of the regulation-making power to give effect to legislation which is supposed to be accountable to the Windsor Framework, when its actual consequence is to create trade diversion, which Article 16 of the Windsor Framework expressly states is inimical to the purpose and intention of the Windsor Framework, such that if this is the result, the parties may derogate from the treaty? I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say.
In order to understand the regulations before us today, and particularly the green lane that they purport to help construct, it is useful to look at how signage works in the rest of the European Union. Moving from one European Union jurisdiction to another, you are effectively presented with three lanes. The blue lane is for any goods moving from one EU jurisdiction to another EU jurisdiction. There is no paperwork and there are no checks. Then there is a red lane. This is for any good that has to be declared and subject to customs and potentially SPS paperwork and checks. Then there is a green lane, which means you can move freely, because you have nothing to declare. However, here in Northern Ireland, as a unionist, I particularly know what a fake green is when I see it. The truth is that what the regulations before us today offer is not an arrangement that, in the words of the Prime Minister,
“removes any sense of a border in the Irish sea”, —[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/23; col. 571.]
such that he could then, and we can now, talk about the regulations before us today as giving effect to aspects of the green lane.
In reality, the Windsor Framework, as the regulations before us today powerfully testify, effects and affirms a border where no border has a right to be. EU regulation 2023/1231, which it is the purpose of these retail movement and plant health regulations to operationalise—and without which they make no sense and cannot be understood or assessed—is about making provision for an alternative and less disruptive border experience than one would otherwise have. However, two things must be understood. First, the alternative arrangements are alternative border arrangements and thus the border remains very much in place and can be negotiated only if you have an export number, apply to join the trusted trader scheme and are accepted, fill in SPS forms, and are potentially subject to some checks at border control posts.
Secondly, article 14 of EU regulation 2023/1231 makes it absolutely clear that the EU reserves the right to remove this border experience in favour of the most disruptive available that it could mete out between itself and a foreign country. In that sense, the Windsor Framework does not get rid of any sense of the border in the Irish Sea any more than it creates a green lane. Its actual effect is to confirm the presence of the border in the Irish Sea and to introduce two red lanes, one of which is less demanding than the other, but which defaults to full disruption at the behest of the European Union.
Neither arrangement reconnects Northern Ireland to the UK single market, which can happen only when it is given unfettered access, which means access without the fettering of customs or SPS requirements as per trade movements between Scotland, England and Wales, or trade movements within any single market. Indeed, rather than reconnecting Northern Ireland to the UK single market, the purpose of the regulations today is to define two different levels of fettering at the border.
Therefore, rather than removing the border, the purpose of these Windsor regulations is to effect and affirm it. This makes it absolutely clear that talk about green lanes is totally confusing and, frankly, misleading. It generates an impression of a green light, of the coast being clear, and so on, but nothing could be further from the truth.
However, in order to really understand the regulations before us today, we need to see them in context, because the truth is even more awkward. Under the border target operating model, it is widely recognised that it is much easier to move goods from the EU into GB than to move goods from GB to the EU. This has immediate consequences for Northern Ireland because all red-lane goods movements between Northern Ireland and GB, which are in the same country, are subject to more fettering than movements of goods from the EU to GB—between different countries.
To this one might say, “But what about the green lane?”—which is of course a red lane. In the first instance, Northern Ireland is part of the same country as the rest of the UK and so should not be disinherited from its own single market by the imposition of any kind of border obstacles. In the second instance, when we study the particular manifestation of the red lane that masquerades as a green lane, we find that some companies regard the burdens associated with it as so onerous that they actually prefer the other red lane. For example, Lynas Foodservice has said that it intends to move 75% of its products on the red lane; in other words, we will have accepted an arrangement that places the interests of GB more with those of France, Germany, Bulgaria and Estonia than with Northern Ireland, because we will want to make it easier for goods to be traded between those countries and Great Britain, in terms of fettering, than with part of our own country. We will have done this, even as we know that through the EU we are offering easy access to our market to those countries—France, Germany, et cetera—that are refusing to respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, imposing both economic disadvantage and the partial disenfranchisement of part of the UK.
I am happy to support this Motion to Regret.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I do not intend to stray beyond the two statutory instruments themselves, but they are symptomatic and symbolic of the wider problems with the Windsor Framework. First, the retail movement SI in particular goes to the very heart of the Windsor Framework arrangements and, secondly, the SIs very much epitomise the fact that the concerns that have been there from the start of the Windsor Framework have not just not been removed but have in fact been reinforced by these regulations. Indeed, the reassurances that were given, particularly by the Prime Minister at the time the Windsor Framework was signed, have been shown to be spin, and these regulations highlight that they were fairly meaningless.
Proponents of these regulations may point to some very marginal improvements on what was there with the protocol. If you are a seed potato farmer, you will at least be able to import, whereas that would have been banned beforehand, and there is a little bit less paperwork. However, if we compare the situation as proposed in these regulations—which indeed has been retrospectively imposed on Northern Ireland, because we are debating after the fact, in effect—with either what was there prior to the situation or even in terms of the grace periods or the STAMNI arrangements, we see that we are in an infinitely worse position. Indeed, any changes that have made are very much at the grace and favour of the European Union, as has been indicated by regulation 1231, which states, as been said by others, that if there is a discontent from the EU with the operation of the procedures, yes, it will consult with the UK Government but it alone will then have the power to set aside these arrangements and impose, in effect, a completely red-lane arrangement on all trade going into Northern Ireland.
It is worth pausing for a moment to think about that. What is contained within the regulations before us today in terms of retail movement is designed to apply only to the so-called green lane; it is supposed to apply only to trade where the end use is in Northern Ireland. This is not about trade which will cross into the EU, and not even about trade that is at risk of travelling into the EU; it is about trade which is entirely within the United Kingdom. Yet the final and unilateral say on this lies with the European Union.
Many reassurances were given at the time of the Windsor Framework: we were told that it would restore the UK internal market and lead to unfettered access in both directions. Indeed, I believe that one of the phrases used was that it would remove any sense of an Irish Sea border, and on one occasion the Government said about the paperwork, “This isn’t going to be any different from if you are transporting goods between Southampton and the Isle of Wight”. I confess I have not travelled, or indeed sought to transport, goods between Southampton and the Isle of Wight, so I am not aware of whether a customs declaration is required, or indeed an export number, or of whether a firm doing that has have a trusted trader status. One would assume that there would be several complaints from the MP for the Isle of Wight if goods coming from Southampton had to go through border posts, let alone if there had to be declarations on every consignment or inspections. That has clearly been shown to be a level of spin.
We then come to inspection checks. We know that documentation has to be provided for 100% of goods, and we know that where there is intelligence that would suggest that goods could be taken across the border, there will be physical checks. However, we are told also that between 5% and 10% of consignments— I think the suspicion in the haulage industry is that it will remain close to 10%—will be physically checked by way of an inspection. That is not a quick glance in the back of a van. Let us remember that to comply with these regulations, every consignment coming into Northern Ireland will have to be sealed with a special seal; that will have to be removed, then replaced, presumably, after the inspection.
It is interesting to compare that level of inspection with territories which, for instance, abut the European Union. There is one Russian enclave within the European Union, Kaliningrad, and goods have to be transported between Kaliningrad and mainland Russia through Poland and Lithuania. Yet the EU instructions, even post sanctions, are that they are to intervene where they believe there is the breaking of sanctions, but otherwise, there is to be no impeding of road transport of goods between Kaliningrad and Russia. There is not a 10% level of inspections there. It seems remarkable that, potentially, goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are going to have a higher level of inspection than in a sanctioned Russian state.
Similarly, on diversion of trade, this is not simply an anxiety; it is a reality. For example, in preparation for this, one of the largest supermarkets, Tesco, showed us slides indicating how it plans to divert trade through the Republic of Ireland. Morgan McLernon, the wing of the largest hauliers in the United Kingdom, has made redundancies in Northern Ireland because it is going to shift its operations to the Republic of Ireland. The testimony of hauliers, which has been given on a number of occasions to the committee, is that this is leading to a considerable level of divergence—let alone the fact that a lot of smaller traders, if they are going to trade fairly infrequently with Northern Ireland, will simply take the view that it is too much hassle.
The restoration of the internal market cuts another way, which has not been mentioned. Government documentation refers to the transportation of goods, and to standards that apply in Great Britain to goods going to Northern Ireland. It also states: “However, enforcement powers against EU standards will remain for goods produced in Northern Ireland”. If we take the port of Larne as an example, you can transport goods from Glasgow to Larne, and they can be sold in Larne according to GB standards. However, the very same shop will not be able to sell goods produced in Larne itself to GB standards. Northern Ireland companies are not even put on a level playing field with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Turning briefly to plant health, given that some of the Government’s answers on these issues have tended to be opaque at best, I may be in a better position to elucidate for the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, regarding her bulbs. It is pretty clear from the legislation that the dispensation the EU has given us on a grace-and-favour basis to transport plants, bulbs and seed potatoes applies only where they can be brought in to a professional operator recipient. To be fair, the company probably did apply the law correctly, but it would appear that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is not entitled as an ordinary consumer to receive those goods. During the recent recess, I was in Prague. Had I decided in Prague to get some bulbs or seed potatoes and made arrangements there for them to be imported to Belfast through the EU, that would have been an awful lot easier, to be perfectly honest, than trying to get them from mainland Great Britain. That is the kind of Alice in Wonderland territory we are in.
A dispensation was generously given in the Windsor Framework that 11 species which were previously completely banned from Northern Ireland could now be brought in. We were told by some in the horticultural industry that they hoped that this would be the start of a process. Some 35 other species were banned, and their hope was that gradually, one by one, that figure would be reduced. I look forward to the Minister explaining whether there has been any further progress on widening what can be brought into Northern Ireland.
These regulations are the symptom of a much larger problem. The reality is that no one who has concerns about the Windsor Framework, particularly those of us on the unionist Benches, seeks anything extraordinary. All we are seeking is restoration of the constitutional status. All we are seeking is the restoration of the UK internal market, and the removal of the sea border. Funnily enough, those were exactly the promises made by the Prime Minister. All we are seeking is for the Prime Minister to fulfil what he promised and turn rhetoric into action.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this has been an at times impassioned debate and we have heard comprehensively, I think it fair to say, from the DUP and one point of view. I listened carefully to the many points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his colleagues. While I have some genuine sympathy with many of his concerns, I none the less think that the Windsor Framework, as the recent report from the Northern Ireland Protocol Sub-Committee said, marks a significant step forward and is an improvement on what went before. It is far from perfect, but, as we have said many times from these Benches, these proposals continue to stem from incompatible promises that were made to the people of Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit.
There is also little doubt that there is a case for further pragmatic changes to be made in future, based on the realities of how these mechanisms work in practice for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland. Just so that I do not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord McCrae, I will give my statutory plea to noble Lords from the DUP: I genuinely believe that their case would be much more powerfully heard if there were a return to a functioning Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland. Indeed, as Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said at the DUP conference last weekend:
“Having no say in our future will not be a recipe for success … having local institutions that succeed in delivering for everyone in Northern Ireland is an essential element of our case”.
I agree with that.
I will make a few brief comments on the regulations before us. It is deeply to be regretted that once again, an impact assessment has not been published. I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, which said that, at the very least,
“basic information on the expected financial impact on businesses and the public purse should have been included in the explanatory memorandum”.
Even at this late stage, can the Minister commit to producing an assessment of the impact on businesses, so that we can have debates based on fact rather than anecdote? It is surely in the Government’s own interest to do so.
Like noble Lords from the DUP, I too question the decision to publish these regulations during the Summer Recess. Publishing them at a time when effective parliamentary scrutiny was not possible inevitably adds to our sense of distrust. Given that the Windsor Framework was agreed in February this year, it was surely possible to publish them before the Summer Recess. I seek reassurances from the Minister that the Government are confident that the temporary SPS infrastructure will be fit for purpose, given that the permanent infrastructure will not be ready until July 2025, as several noble Lords from the DUP said.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government
“has considered and reflected engagement with interested stakeholders”.
Is it possible to publish a list of the people who were consulted? I remain convinced that transparency helps to generate the atmosphere of trust that has been so lacking during this whole process.
In conclusion, we on these Benches support the Windsor Framework and, by extension, the regulations we are debating today. However, I do understand many of the criticisms of the Government and the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, about the lack of transparency and consultation. I think it fair to say that the whole process leading to the Northern Ireland protocol and now the Windsor Framework has not exactly been a model of transparency and effective communication or consultation. I therefore hope that we can now move on to a more practical, pragmatic phase, learn from the mistakes of the past and make the Windsor Framework work for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships’ House for a truly comprehensive debate. Given the detail of the contributions and that these issues have been considered in depth during this debate and during the consideration of an associated statutory instrument prior to the Conference Recess, I will keep my contribution short.
We consider this legislation to be vital to the implementation of the Windsor Framework and, as we have consistently stated, we support a negotiated outcome with the EU. While the Labour Party does not believe that the Windsor Framework is perfect, it is a substantial improvement on what came before. Although it may be to the disappointment of some, the core tenets of the Windsor Framework are now in operation. While this regret Motion would not undermine it in legislative terms, supporting it—whether at this Dispatch Box or in the Division Lobbies should the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, decide to test the opinion of the House—would suggest that we believe that there is a viable alternative. We are unable to say that and therefore cannot support him.
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a wholehearted endorsement of what the Government have achieved because important gaps remain, as we have heard. However, it reflects our belief that a negotiated outcome is preferable to threats or unilateral action and that once a deal is translated into an instrument of international law, it must be respected and upheld. Successive Conservative Governments have, at times, fallen short in this regard. We welcome that, on this occasion, Ministers are doing things by the book.
As I have said, the Windsor Framework is not a comprehensive framework and not every issue with the protocol has been fully resolved. There are several important changes to GB-Northern Ireland trade which strengthen the internal market, but there is still work to do. The Motion tabled by the noble Lord cites concerns around the speed of implementation and lack of public consultation. While we accept the public interest in, and general business support for, moving swiftly, I hope that he remembers my previous comments in relation to the consultation: stakeholders may have been able to make submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but that is no substitute for a more formal process.
I have a few questions for the Minister. He will know that in recent days his noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe provided a written update on the switch-on of the Windsor Framework arrangements. Can the noble Lord the Minister elaborate on the recent changes and confirm how businesses can provide feedback on their operation? We have just returned from the Conference Recess. Many of us in your Lordships’ House would have welcomed the comments from Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the leader of the DUP, which suggested that progress was being made in discussions around the Windsor Framework and the all-important restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive—a sentiment he also alluded to in the other place today. On that note, can the Minister provide any update to the House on the DUP’s proposal for the establishment of an east-west council to deal with issues relating to GB-Northern Ireland trade?
It is imperative for all of us to make this work. While we support the negotiated settlement reached earlier this year and hope that it will lead to a marked improvement in the experiences of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, I sincerely hope that moving forward, whether on the Windsor Framework or other issues, His Majesty’s Government make a renewed effort to work with and listen to parties and communities in Northern Ireland, rather than imposing policy and legislation on them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, for tabling this Motion, and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate today. I pay great tribute to him and his colleagues. I entirely understand the passion that underlies their concerns about this. All of us who have had knowledge and understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland over a great many decades appreciate the underlying emotions that exist on issues relating to this. Trade is so important to every person in Northern Ireland for all of us who care about the union.
We have before us two key pieces of legislation, the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulations 2023 and the Windsor Framework (Plant Health) Regulations 2023. Both play a pivotal role in the implementation of the Windsor Framework. I am pleased to announce that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, has said, the schemes are now live and trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is once again on a more stable and long-term footing. It is our fervent wish to successfully restore the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market and safeguard Northern Ireland’s place in the union.
First, I would like to provide some background on the retail movement scheme regulations. The scheme establishes a robust and sustainable legal framework for the movement of pre-packaged retail agri-food goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. This framework offers traders a unique set of arrangements, reducing barriers to trade by facilitating the movement of consignments based on a single certificate, compared with hundreds of vet-signed certificates for individual products needed under the old protocol. One of the key benefits secured by this scheme is the disapplication of over 60 pieces of EU legislation for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, ensuring a consistent approach across the entire United Kingdom. This means that goods which meet British public health, marketing and organics standards will be able to move to Northern Ireland.
We have a long-standing commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses have unfettered access to their most important market, Great Britain. The Northern Ireland protocol guaranteed unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the GB market. This was legislated for in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and is reflected in the border target operating model. Furthermore, it has been raised in this debate that the instruments are contrary to the objectives of the Northern Ireland protocol listed in Article 1(2) of the Windsor Framework. In response to that assertion, I assure noble Lords that the Windsor Framework restores the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing the unnecessary burdens that have disrupted east-west trade. We are now able to achieve the long-standing UK government objective of restoring the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by pursuing a green lane for the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, supporting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK. We are confident that the Windsor Framework upholds our objectives to ensure that Northern Ireland’s place in the union is protected. Specifically, the framework allows for goods which meet British standards to be available in all parts of the UK, ensuring that consumers in Northern Ireland have access to the same goods as those elsewhere in the UK.
The plant health regulations pave the way for the smooth movement of plants and seeds for planting, seed potatoes and used agricultural and forestry machinery and vehicles between Great Britain and Northern Ireland when applying a Northern Ireland plant health label. The Northern Ireland plant health label scheme aligns closely with the current UK plant passport regime, making it familiar and accessible to all businesses engaged in the commercial movement of plants within Great Britain. This label will replace the need for plants and seeds for planting to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, significantly reducing costs. Instead of paying £150 per movement into Northern Ireland, growers and businesses can now pay approximately £120 annually to be part of this scheme, which is the same as the cost for the UK plant passport regime.
Importantly, these regulations will also allow previously banned seed potatoes to be once again available in Northern Ireland from other parts of the UK while remaining prohibited in the Republic of Ireland. This will have a significant impact on trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland, with an estimated 2,500 tonnes of seed potatoes expected to move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The EU’s risk assessment process for the movement of so-called high-risk trees, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, is being expedited. Once approved, they will move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland plant health label. We prioritised removing bans on the movement of plants and trees of greatest importance to industry—seed potatoes and the 11 most important British native and other commonly grown trees. I assure my noble friend that hawthorn is under that definition.
The Windsor Framework has also removed the Irish Sea border for goods remaining in the UK, providing a firm legal foundation for trade and allowing everyday goods to move efficiently between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It does so while protecting biosecurity on the island of Ireland, which has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. It also safeguards Northern Ireland’s privileged access to the EU single market, which has been a clear demand from businesses to protect livelihoods. These regulations play a critical role in facilitating the seamless movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reducing trade barriers, and promoting a more efficient and cost-effective trading environment. They are essential components of the Windsor Framework; I hope therefore I can convince all noble Lords to support their implementation, as we debated before the Summer Recess.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
Could the Minister clearly define “unfettered access”?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will refer to the noble Baroness’s bulbs. I do not know why the company she bought her bulbs from returned her money and did not wish for her custom, because the movement of plants, including bulbs, to consumers is possible if it is through a registered operator, including mail order and internet sales. I hope that one day bulbs from GB will adorn her garden in Northern Ireland. In direct answer to her question on unfettered access, I say that we all want is for goods—whether bulbs or anything else—to be traded within the United Kingdom in a similar way to anywhere within GB. I want to make sure that we are working towards that, and this is not perfect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, said—nothing that we pass through Parliament is perfect—but it is a considerable improvement and one that has been welcomed by many businesses in Northern Ireland. I hope that in moving towards that goal we will see greater understanding as the schemes are rolled out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, asked me about recent changes and the points raised by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. There has been a huge amount of engagement with business, and that will continue. We want to make sure that the east-west trading discussions continue. I also want to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, that we believe that even though some of the infrastructure is not yet built, the temporary arrangements are adequate; they are not perfect, and the sooner that we can have the more formal infrastructure in place, then we will see an improvement not just for trade but for the people who work there.
The Government recognise that it is vital that we are now able to restore the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. Although our retail movement scheme protects Northern Ireland from problems caused by regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU, we are seeing problematic divergence from the lack of an Assembly. We are, for example, unable to apply prohibitions on dangerous dogs UK-wide. Outside my departmental brief, we are seeing growing divergence on health waiting lists and core public services. I echo the points made by a number of noble Lords about the need to move towards some form of local democracy, which we put in place through the arrangements that have superseded the end of the sitting of the Assembly. I really welcome the comments made by the leader of the DUP indicating why it is important that decisions are taken locally.
I am grateful for this further opportunity to make the case for a greatly improved trading arrangement and for the valuable discussion. A number of points were raised of a highly technical nature, and if I have not covered them in my reply I am very happy to take them forward with noble Lords after this debate. I really hope I have gone as far as I can to convince the mover of this Motion to Regret, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others to not push it to the vote.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for addressing some of the points raised in the debate this evening. A wide range of issues have been discussed, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. It has been extremely useful, and important indeed, for this Parliament to actually discuss these matters. It beggars belief that had it not been for this Motion to Regret, these matters of such fundamental importance—central to the Windsor Framework, according to the Government —would not have been debated at all in Parliament. I will put down a marker. If the Government are so proud of the Windsor Framework, why do they continue to shy away from debate on it? The Prime Minister rushed a quick vote on the Stormont brake when he introduced the Windsor Framework, and said it was a vote on the entire framework, but it has hardly been debated since—certainly not in government time. It is important that those of us who have a responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government in Parliament, especially on these matters of such constitutional and political import, take every opportunity to bring these matters to the Floor of the House and have them debated, and, if necessary, voted on.
The Minister in his response said that goods made to British Standards are now available in all parts of the United Kingdom as a result of the Windsor Framework. He omitted to say, “Except, of course, if they are made in Northern Ireland”. That is not an improvement. He said it removed the Irish Sea border for goods staying in the United Kingdom—no, it does not. If goods staying in the United Kingdom happen to be on a lorry with goods going to the Irish Republic, they have to go through the red lane, so that is not a correct statement. On the matter of bulbs raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, I will correct the record again: it is illegal for such items to be sold directly to consumers in Northern Ireland. Those are the facts. One of the problems we have had in this whole Windsor Framework and protocol debate is the spin that tries to make it out to be something it is not. Just be honest with people that this is the best you can get, but do not try to cod people in Northern Ireland that this is something that it is not. This is where the Conservative and Unionist Party has gone badly wrong in Northern Ireland. Ineptitude and a lack of engagement now passes for the top level—certainly in the top two at the NIO, whose policy seems to be to avoid engagement and discussion with anyone in Northern Ireland, lest they say something that causes further controversy and difficulty for the Government.
The protocol sub-committee on which I have the honour to serve made it very clear that the Windsor Framework may be a technical improvement on the original protocol, but it is not an improvement on the position with the easements and grace periods. It will be more burdensome, so again let us be accurate about the matter. As for the institutions of the Belfast agreement—the Assembly, the north-south body, the east-west body and all the rest of them—it is in the hands of the Government, this House and the other place to decide when devolution comes back. Let us restore equal citizenship; let us be honest with people; let us have the same rights as UK citizens, as the rest of our citizens—the right to make laws for our own country here at Westminster or in the Assembly. As my noble friend Lord Weir said, these are not matters in which we demand special privileges; we simply demand our rights as UK citizens.
Jeffrey Donaldson was quoted. We agree with devolution. I was a Minister in three different departments of the Northern Ireland Executive. We shared power with Sinn Féin, a party that is unrepentantly in favour of murder of our kith and kin, in order to get devolution and to move things forward in Northern Ireland, but we did so based on an equitable settlement which respected strands 1, 2 and 3 of the relationships within these islands. Those agreements have been trashed by the protocol and the Windsor Framework. They must be restored. As Jeffrey Donaldson said on Saturday— I notice that some people left out this part—the customs border was “unacceptable” in 2019 and 2021 and it is unacceptable today. So let us get on. The Government know what needs to be done, so let us get on and help them along their way. I hope that we restore those institutions sooner or later.
I do not intend to press this Motion to a vote tonight, but I reserve the right to bring all issues affecting Northern Ireland to the Floor of the House, unless the Government are prepared to do so of their own volition, to debate them and to vote on them, going forward.
Access to Musical Education in School
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Boateng
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to address inequalities in access to musical education in school.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, in raising this Question for Short Debate, I declare my interest as an unremunerated, independent, non-executive director of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra.
Music matters. It drives both personal and intellectual development, lifts our spirits and the soul, and drives the creative industries that add so very much to our economy. So access to music matters—access to performances, and the opportunity to perform and to be employed in the industry of which music plays such a part. It matters.
For all this to be possible, music teachers matter. I cannot say those words without naming three: Leonora Rennel, Iris du Pré and Hans Seeling. More than 50 years ago, in the music block of a state school on a council estate of a new town called Hemel Hempstead, they gave me the opportunities that I have enjoyed ever since. They gave me access to music and the capacity to find in it something that has nurtured me, as I know it has all Members of this House present at this debate. We could not have a more distinguished list of contributors, as music has nurtured us all. All of us will be able to name the music teachers who were important in our lives.
Equity and access to music, and to the best qualified music teachers, matters. It is under threat today perhaps more than it has been at any time of our lives, despite the good intentions of government and numerous plans. I have no doubt that we will hear a lot from the Minister, whose sincerity and commitment in this area is beyond question, about those intentions and a refreshed national plan for music education. But however welcome the good intentions are and however much we applaud the ambitions, the lack of capacity and resource in the system is a grave concern. Our very own All-Party Parliamentary Group for Music Education concluded in its report, Music Education: State of the Nation, that
“the overall picture is one of serious decline. If the pace continues, music education in England will be restricted to a privileged few within a decade, and the UK will have lost a major part of the talent pipeline to its world-renowned music industry”.
The facts speak for themselves. The Independent Society of Musicians states in no uncertain terms that this year’s exam results are “a wake-up call”. They are, and they tell their own story: a 36% drop in GCSE and a 45% drop in A-level music entries in England, Wales and Northern Ireland since 2010. There is a crisis in teacher training and recruitment, with schools increasingly forced to cut music provision or use non-specialists to teach music as a result.
It is also a picture of increasing inequality. All too often, those in a private school have access to the very best of music but those in a state school simply do not. In the most deprived areas, many do not have any access to music education at all. There is increasing pressure on resources and the current annual funding for music hubs of £75 million per year, however welcome, needs to be seen in context. It amounts to roughly £9.34 per pupil per year. Compare that to the £73.63 per pupil per year that we spend on sport. There is simply no comparison, yet both ought to be and are valued in our national life.
I have no doubt that we will hear much about the £25 million that has been ring-fenced to buy instruments, but that £25 million is less than we spent on training the rowing team for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. I know whose results I prefer and whose are truly outstanding. I am fond of rowing and encourage my grandson to row, but it does not play the part in our national life that music does.
We have a crisis. It needs to be addressed by funding but also by looking at the way in which we value music within our education system. The fact is that the English baccalaureate does not value the subject. I fear that the measures we use to establish the school league tables do not emphasise the importance of exposure to music education. This creates a perverse disincentive to teach music and to expose young people to music in our schools. How do the Minister and the Government propose to address that issue? What measures will they bring forward to ensure that these refreshed music hubs do what they are meant to?
The funding for music hubs is less than the £83 million- plus we were spending before they came into being. How are music hubs to be incentivised in their partnerships with schools, unless there is a statutory duty on schools to deliver a musical education? There is none. Do the Government intend to address that lacuna—that massive hole in all that we seek and aspire to do for young people in music education?
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has reported a 9% drop in funding per student between 2010 and 2020. There was a promise in this Government’s last manifesto for a £90 million arts premium. Whatever happened to that? There is an issue about funding that we simply cannot escape. When it comes to teacher training, the figures show that the number of secondary school music teachers fell by 15%, from 8,043 in 2011 to 6,837 in 2020. The ITT census for 2023 shows that only 64% of the target for music trainees has in fact been reached. So how do the Government intend to restore and fund a sufficient number of places for trainee specialist teachers of music?
We know it works, and we know it makes a difference. The work that the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra is doing in Hull and Brent in driving talent and workforce development for the profession, and the improvement in schools such as Feversham Primary in Bradford, which went from a failing school to an outstanding school after it introduced three hours-plus of music per week for each individual student, tell their own story. There is an African proverb that says:
“Music speaks louder than words”.
Our education system needs to amplify the voice of music.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, it is an immense pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. I congratulate him on securing the debate. I declare my interests as chair of the national plan for music education and the London Music Fund. We will, no doubt, hear from many noble Lords this evening who share our passion and commitment to music education and the absolute belief that it should be available to all children and young people, whatever their background and financial circumstance. This is at the heart of the national plan for music education, which I chair. I am determined that it will be implemented. The noble Lord made many excellent points. We are acting and are determined to move the dial. In this debate, I will focus on the importance of implementing the plan and on some of the barriers that I admit we have to overcome.
Music creates unimagined life chances, as I have seen, and found such pleasure and determination in, through my work as co-founder and chair of the London Music Fund. I set up the charity more than 10 years ago to give young people from disadvantaged backgrounds access to high-quality and sustained music education. More than 60% of our scholars are from black, Asian and ethnically diverse backgrounds. They often have little experience of life beyond their neighbourhoods. Over four years, we provide instruments, weekly music lessons, Saturday music school, mentors, opportunities to play with professional musicians, and visits to concerts.
The results from the first cohorts can now be seen. Many are at university, some at conservatoires. Flautist Aliyah is at the Guildhall, cellist Aisha at the BRIT School, saxophonist Yasmin studying medicine at Cambridge, and clarinettist Monique studying maths at Imperial College. All now have the opportunity to develop into outstanding young citizens, with the skills, knowledge and confidence to succeed in life and work. More young people like Aliyah and Aisha could be helped next year by the national plan’s new progression fund. This programme, which will support 1,000 young musicians from low-income families, needs to be replicated right across the country.
In spite of reports of music in schools being in crisis, all of us here have, I believe, seen remarkable music in many different schools, not just private but state schools, in many communities. The noble Lord mentioned Feversham Primary Academy in Bradford. It is an outstanding school that has put music at its heart. The enlightened head teacher, who did this nearly 10 years ago now, is being rewarded with excellent results. All children learn to sing and to play a musical instrument. They do six hours of music a week. Imagine this—and it is all delivered within the school budget. It is not just about money but the determination of the head teacher to follow this route. Every primary school could follow its example and see results soar, as well as having many very happy children. A recent RPO poll showed that 85% of children want to learn a musical instrument.
It is good news that the DfE has provided £25 million for musical instruments; that all schools, primary and secondary, are now mandated to provide an absolute minimum of one hour a week of curriculum time for music; and that the Government have finally agreed to fund bursaries for music students in teacher training. But there are barriers. The workforce remains an issue. We need more specialist music teachers. Those we are lucky enough to have need to feel valued, rewarded and not left behind in the pay stakes. A top-up for the £79 million for music hubs would make a huge difference and show that the Government really care about music education. Most important of all, we must get every single head teacher, governor and parent on side to recognise the power of music and embed music education in their school right across the country.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness’s passionate contribution. I commend my noble friend for initiating this important debate. It calls for us to answer three things: we need to highlight the importance of music to education, identify existing shortcomings, and propose actionable solutions.
I offer these remarks as the non-executive chair of UK Music, to which I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register. UK Music is the umbrella organisation comprising 10 key industry organisations: the Ivors Academy of songwriters, the Featured Artists Coalition, the Musicians’ Union, the collecting societies PRS for Music and PPL, the Music Producers Guild, the BPI and AIM for the labels, the Music Publishers Association, and the Music Managers Forum. Together, they form the complex but vital ecosystem of our nation’s music industry, a sector that contributes £5.8 billion in gross value added to our economy and makes the UK one of only three countries in the world that is a net global exporter of music.
While these organisations hold varied views on many issues, they universally affirm that quality music education is vital for the future of the industry. It does not just prepare the professionals of tomorrow but enriches our society, as my noble friend outlined. Yet research confirms the comprehensive benefits of music, including the proven advantage across academic subjects between music students and their non-musical counter- parts. Regrettably, nearly half of adults say, when asked, that they wish they had invested more time in music. That might be because, as UK Music research says, parents acknowledge music’s positive impact on their children’s development.
Despite these benefits, I believe that we are facing an educational crisis. We have seen a deficit of nearly 1,000 secondary school music teachers compared to 2012. Less than a third of secondary school music teacher recruitment targets will be met this year, partly exacerbated by the scrapping of training bursaries in 2020. We are extremely grateful that the Government have reinstated them for 2024. It is a step in the right direction, but there could be more. Furthermore, and more worryingly, as my noble friend has highlighted, there is a steep decline in students taking exams— 45% at A-level is particularly worrying.
To tackle these issues, I suggest the following commitments that all political parties may wish to consider before the next general election. First, implement the arts pupil premium, which would ensure equitable access to music education. It was a government commitment in the 2019 election; it would be great to see it implemented by the next election. Secondly, train and recruit 1,000 additional new music teachers to redress the cuts made over the last decade. Thirdly, increase funding for music education hubs, whose real-term budgets have been cut by 17% since 2011, and establish a UK-wide commission to assess and remedy regional inequalities in music education. Here, we can learn from the Scottish Parliament, which has seen a 35% uplift in music instrument education since it made tuition fees free. Finally, we can expand apprenticeships and vocational qualifications, catering for the unique needs of the sector.
If we aim to succeed in music’s invaluable contribution to export-led growth, then resolving the decline in music education is absolutely imperative.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to join enthusiasts in this debate. When I asked a Question this week on music and other arts subjects, the Minister gave me to understand that all was well: generous bursaries would lure music teachers out of the woodwork and there would be money for music hubs. But there are still schools where there is no singing, no recorder playing and no banging of drums. As the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, has said, the EBacc has marginalised music.
I had two grandsons at a state primary school in Henley which has a very impressive musical tradition. The adult musicians had funded musical instruments for every state primary pupil to play. One grandson chose the double bass—which even as a child-size was quite an encumbrance—and played happily for two or three years. His brother chose the cornet, continued to grade 8 and has just graduated in music from Southampton. Each year there would be a grand concert, in the company of professional musicians, where all these little people played their hearts out. Many came from very disadvantaged backgrounds where music would have played no part, but the glee on their faces as they blew, scraped and banged was a joy to behold. It has to be said that the enjoyment probably exceeded the musicality, but no one worried because the experience was so beneficial. It was an amazing gift from Henley musicians, which few areas would be able to emulate. It set all those youngsters on a path of love of music and gave them confidence—obviously sometimes misplaced, of course—that they could play an instrument. I think violins are particularly prone to excruciating amateurism.
Not so long ago, all schools sang, particularly hymns in morning worship, but this has long disappeared. Singing requires only a piano, and not even that if there is a voice to start a tune. Children love to sing; how sad it is if they do not have the opportunity. What are the Government doing to encourage all schools to sing?
How valuable music is for disabled or disadvantaged pupils. There was a girl at my school who was never going to pass any exams, but when she sat down at the piano we could only marvel and enjoy. She was a true prodigy, who earned her place in our friendship because of her extraordinary talent.
What about music for blind and partially sighted students? Can the Minister say what support there is for braille or large-print music? I gather there are problems with this. For those who are missing sight, their hearing is often enhanced, and music can play a seminal part in their education. We think of amazing singers such as Andrea Bocelli, who became completely blind at 12 after a football accident, but whose wonderful tenor voice has enchanted audiences around the world. He played the piano and multiple instruments before abandoning a career in the law to pursue his talent. What a very wise decision.
Music has the capacity to evoke memories and give confidence to learners who struggle with class lessons. It should play a key role in all schools. Penny whistles, drums and recorders are not so expensive and, once acquired, can be passed down to succeeding generations, so some sorts of instruments could be within budget and encouraged. Many schools will still have pianos, or, if not, a friendly local church will have an organ, which a teacher with some keyboard skills could play. Surely most schools will have a teacher who has had piano lessons at some stage—or is that too a thing of the past? I speak as someone who was lured into being a reluctant organist at RAF chapels when my daughters announced that, “Mum plays hymns”.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for initiating this debate. I hope against hope that all children, particularly those who have no music at home, will be able to benefit from music at school and, who knows, go on to delight us all with their talents.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I salute the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, on securing this debate, which is so important.
I begin by mentioning something I mentioned 10 years ago in my maiden speech. I talked about how, through the Koestler Trust, I managed to get somebody in Wormwood Scrubs a guitar. He wrote to me and he said: “I cannot tell you how grateful I am for this instrument. If I had had the opportunity to express myself through music when I was at school, I would not now be serving life for murder”. It is that powerful. Music matters, as we have heard.
At this point, I would like to say that I also agree with the noble Lord that the Government have heard what we are all saying. My conversations with Minister Gibb revealed an aspiration that we all share. There is a lot to do, because we are starting from a rather bad point, but we are getting there. I salute the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, for what she has done with her charity and for disadvantaged children.
That brings me to a particular point. The £25 million for instruments is enormously welcome, but we also have to think about repairing old instruments. I mentioned this to Minister Gibb and he was sympathetic, but the problem is that the way the £25 million has been apportioned, in Treasury terms, means that it cannot be used for repairs. This is something the Government might like to look at. I will give noble Lords an example. I managed to find a violin for one of the talented musicians of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. I had it looked at to see if it would work. I was told: “It could be very good; could be front-desk NYO”—that good—“But it needs £1,000 spending on it”. We managed to achieve that, but it shows exactly what the problem is.
The mention of blind and deaf people is terribly important. I declare an interest as president of Decibels, which tries to help deaf people have greater access to everything, not just music. Think of the achievements of somebody such as Dame Evelyn Glennie, who learned to be able to play music to a very high level by using vibrations as a means of reading music. The point about braille is very important. There is a wonderful story about a young man who has a real talent—I have heard him play—but who says: “I cannot keep up with my colleagues because there aren’t the funds or time to transcribe my music into braille”. Is it not wonderful that you can transcribe music into braille? To be honest, I did not realise that before, but what a wonderful thing to be able to do. I encourage the Minister to look at the possibility of funding this—I do not suppose that it would be a vast amount.
We live in very difficult times—the ENO, the Middle East, Ukraine. While I do not suggest that music can in any way explain or improve these things, I think it can help us to process them. Consider Beethoven and the problems that he had to overcome: in listening to his music, we understand the greater truth about ourselves. Music can take us to places that almost nothing else can, and that is because it is an abstract art. In its abstraction lies a certain magic or mystery, which is why so many artists aspire to the condition of music.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng—and, if I may, the three teachers who inspired him—for initiating this debate. I went to King David High School in Liverpool, a Jewish state school, where music was one of the top criteria for getting in. We had a school of 500 pupils, with four orchestras. You knew on the first day of the new term that if a child was not carrying a violin case then they were a pianist.
One of my closest friends is a lawyer, Stephen Levey, who has a real passion for music—so much so that, in his mid-50s, he left the law and became head of music at Immanuel College, Bushey. The inspiration that he shows to the pupils, as I have seen first-hand, is quite remarkable. For him to have left the law to do that and to follow his passion means that that passion is passed on. Maybe I should ask the Minister if she can find a way to have Stephen cloned, because clearly we are short of passionate music teachers. My own grandchildren go to Sacks Morasha school up in Finchley. I learned today that, since last September when the music teacher left, there has been no specialist music teacher at their school.
I shall concentrate today on a charity that I have got involved with—I am not a trustee but have just got involved—called Restore the Music. In many different ways, it does things that my noble friend Lady Fleet talked about. A friend of mine, Gordon Singer, who moved from the US to manage a hedge fund here, and Polly Moore, who left her work as a commodities broker, met and created this charity. In my view, the Restore the Music model is an answer to some of the lack of funding and resourcing of music departments. That model is quite simple: a capital grant programme funded by the private and charitable sector; the delivery of grant awards between £10,000 and £20,000 directly to schools; and a focus on highly socioeconomically deprived areas. The spending of the grant is bespoke to the school, allowing the teacher to build their own vision for their own school and their pupils.
That model gives young people a place in school, as we all know, to find their voice, to find their place and to follow their passion. As the charity says on its website, a young person in school is a young person not on a street or in a gang. I went to a “battle of the bands” that it did at a school not far from here a couple of years ago, and I was particularly moved by the 15 or 16 year-old guy who stood up, holding his electric guitar and ready to play, and said, “If I wasn’t holding this electric guitar, I’d be holding a knife and I’d be in a gang”. It does so much good, as we all know.
Over the last five years, the charity has funded 125 schools with £2.2 million in London, Manchester, Newcastle and Birmingham. I repeat that it is unique because it is bespoke to the schools; the schools are told to build a solution that fits their community. I ask the Minister if she will meet the founders to see not only how they can be supported in expanding their work but if they can be helpful in ensuring that the £25 million, which is extremely welcome, will be spent in the best way.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the way that this debate is evolving, and I suspect it will go on in the same way, is already demonstrating that everyone—in this Room, anyway, and I include the Minister in that, no matter that I may not entirely agree with what she is going to say in the end—is not only convinced by the importance of music education but trying in their own way, to the best of their individual ability, to promote it. It is just that there are an awful lot of different ways of doing that, and they are not terribly joined up. I pay great tribute to my noble friend Lord Boateng who has set out the agenda very clearly, to the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, for the work that she is doing, and to everything that we have heard about so far that demonstrates how much is actually going on.
So I hate to start with a “but”, but there is one: there are inequalities, and they are deeply rooted. There are inequalities within the maintained sector because, as we have heard, some schools do very well and choose to give special emphasis to music and effectively make themselves specialists, but others choose not to or feel they cannot. The point is that it is a choice that any school is free to make about music but which no school is free to make about maths, English or science. I do not want to repeat all the evidence and stats about how music has been deprioritised in many state schools, but we have evidence that it has, and that has consequences, many of which have already been mentioned.
I wonder if the Minister has had time to listen to a series of instructive programmes that are currently being rebroadcast on Radio 4 called “Rethinking Music”. She is nodding her head, so I suspect she knows what it is about. I want to make a point about this: one of the key contributors to those programmes is Jamie Njoku-Goodwin, who used to be CEO of UK Music. What does he do now? He is the Prime Minister’s director of strategy. Let us hope that his evident concern about the decline in engagement with music education, which he makes very clear in the programme, will lead him to use his considerable influence within government to help to halt that decline.
I shall make one more point, which is about the inequality between the state sector and the independent sector. My daughter, as I have mentioned before, is a professional musician. Alongside her life as a performer, she provided individual tuition for many years at an independent London day school, which had dozens of music staff. There was virtually no musical skill or genre that students attending that school could not access—at a price, of course. By contrast, her own children, educated in the maintained sector, got music tuition but not at school; they got it because their parents knew it was valuable and were prepared to pay for it. Not everyone can do that.
I know what the Minister will say, and we will all nod along because a lot of what she will want to say is entirely admirable. By the way, I hope she will mention and acknowledge the excellent work being done by arts organisations large and small, charities and indeed churches in providing opportunities for young people to experience and participate in music. Sadly, however, these initiatives, worthy and significant as they are, are no substitute for the proper reinstatement of music into a forward-thinking, broadly based school curriculum from early years to A-level. That is what we need before it is too late.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join the universal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this debate and introducing it so clearly. We have to note that we are holding this debate as the Guardian publishes an article noting how the £370 million government fumble in funding allocations to schools sees education in England in danger of being reduced to a “barebones, boilerplate model”. Those are the words of an Essex head teacher, James Saunders, whose school is going to receive £50,000 less than anticipated.
Of course we are seeing the risk of cutting teaching assistants, which is of particular importance to children with special educational needs. A number of headteachers the Guardian has spoken to focus on the fact they will have to reduce enrichment activities to balance their books. What we have been talking about up to now are not so much the enrichment activities—the added value, of which music could be such an important part—but basic education in the national curriculum.
It is worth looking back at the recent Ofsted report. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, among others, referred to inequalities. Ofsted has looked at these and said that in over a decade the situation has not improved. There has been some progress in primary schools, but secondary schools are still not giving enough time to music education to meet what is supposed to be the national curriculum requirement. The point I make in this context is that there are only so many hours in the school day. If we are forcing schools to become exam factories and to teach to the test, following on the English bacc subjects—a very narrow range of subjects —no matter how much money there is, there are not enough hours in the day. We need an education for life, not just an education for exams. That is not what we are getting. It is very easy to focus on the potential economic benefits of music; many have, and I agree with all that. But it is useful to focus on the way in which we need people in our communities who are able to contribute to community music.
I particularly want to bounce off the wonderful contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, which was delivered with such verve—“tempo” is perhaps the right word—and think about the well-being and mental health benefits of ensuring that a proper amount of music education is available to all pupils. I draw on a UK Music study, which says:
“Over half of parents whose children are learning an instrument believe it has helped their children with other skills like creative thinking … boosting their confidence … and encouraging perseverance and patience”.
Playing music, listening to music and understanding music are good for people as human beings, equipping them to cope with the modern world and the many challenges we are facing. Yet there is such inequality:
“50% of children at independent schools receive sustained music tuition”
compared with just 15% in state schools. If we look at professionals, we see that
“17% of music creators were educated at fee-paying schools, compared with 7% across the population as a whole”.
Music is something that is good for our society.
Finally, there is no proposed specific music T-level. The closest is media, broadcast and production. That demands work placements of a minimum of 315 hours, which the music sector is going to find very hard to provide. Could the Minister update us on how she sees music being included in the T-level future?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I also commend my noble friend Lord Boateng on securing this important debate and setting the scene most effectively, not least in listing the worrying statistics around the provision of musical education today.
A decade ago, I welcomed the establishment of a network of music education hubs, which provide a framework of provision on which schools can draw. But there is still significant variability in music provision, particularly in primary schools. The Independent Society of Musicians has major concerns about the investment programme the Government have announced, because it will cut hub numbers from over 100 to just 43 hub lead organisations. The hubs’ current annual funding of £79 million sounds quite promising, yet is less than before the creation of hubs, when music services received around £82 million. That cannot be described as progress.
In response to a survey conducted by UK Music, more than 50% of responding primary schools said they did not meet their curriculum obligations to year 6 due in the main to the pressure of SATs testing, which demands that schools concentrate on English and maths to almost the exclusion of most other subjects. The same issue exists at secondary level, with the EBacc and Progress 8 measures.
Along with my noble friend Lord Knight, I am a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that is considering 11-to-16 education. I should have said that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, is also a member of the committee. We heard from numerous witnesses that key stage 3, which includes compulsory music education up to age 14, is often shortened to allow subjects to be narrowed in year 9 in preparation for GCSEs. In evidence to the committee the chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, stated that she was opposed to any curtailing of KS3, yet stopped short of saying that her inspectors would mark down any school found to be doing so.
Music education should not be a political issue, but I am afraid to say that it is. As the Independent Society of Musicians highlighted in the briefing sent to all noble Lords participating today, much of the decline in music education is directly attributable to government policies. Funding cuts have squeezed school budgets, while those school accountability measures I mentioned—EBacc and Progress 8—have steadily undermined music in schools since 2010.
A major aspect of inequalities in music education provision concerns children with special educational needs and disabilities, for whom access to music can often be hugely beneficial. There is a perception that deaf children will not be able to access music but, for improving hearing, music can be really important and possible when they have access to early support through auditory verbal therapy. Earlier today, along with many other parliamentarians, I attended Auditory Verbal UK’s event in Parliament as part of international awareness day for challenging perceptions of what deaf children can achieve. We met both Noli and Louis, who have developed a passion for music as a result of the role it played in allowing them, through auditory verbal therapy, to speak confidently and to thrive in mainstream education. But more than 90% of deaf children who could benefit from auditory verbal therapy are currently unable to access it. The Government should increase the support that they provide to extend those services because of their very beneficial nature.
In wider terms, I have to ask the Minister whether the Government are content for music in schools to remain dominated by the better-off, because that, as noble Lords have said, is what is happening. The Education Policy Institute reported prior to the pandemic that disadvantaged pupils’ performance in music was 20 months behind that of their better-off peers. That was the biggest gap of any GCSE subject. That cannot be allowed to continue.
Labour is committed to introducing a broad curriculum, including design and technology, music, art, dance and drama. These are not soft options, but rigorous, creative subjects, vital to the prosperity of the economy and the enrichment of society as a whole. That curriculum will be compulsory for all state-funded schools. Until children are offered a properly broad and balanced curriculum, I fear we will not witness a reverse of the downward trend of uptake of music at GCSE and A-level. That would require a change of direction, if not emphasis, which in itself will require a change in government to one which actively values and will properly fund creative subjects in general and music education in particular. Fortunately, we have one in waiting.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for initiating this very important debate. As ever, I must declare my interest as a teacher of design and technology in a state secondary school. The Minister is going to be rather surprised and, perhaps, relieved that she and I are not going to go through one of our recent dances where I complain about the crushing weight of the curriculum and she replies that a knowledge-rich curriculum is good for everyone. No, I am going to suggest that there is, perhaps, some good news for once, because I think there is a simple first fix for addressing the problem of inequalities in access to musical education in schools.
When one thinks of music lessons, one tends to think of a single child playing an instrument, which, of course, is expensive and at the far end of the spectrum where most parents and children do not want to go, even if they could afford it. We must think of music lessons initially as a more collaborative process, whereby everyone gets to join in. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, we cannot all sing in tune, but nearly all of us can clap, stamp or make a rhythmic noise. It is that unity—the training to get a group making sounds in unison—that is at the heart of music’s benefit to students, for this encompasses discipline, athleticism and co-ordination in a way that not even sport can better, often for students who hate PE. From this may come a lifelong love of music that will, perhaps, encourage students to continue the subject on to GCSE, take up an instrument, or follow it towards a career in the music industry.
The school where I teach has a thriving music department. We take the newly arrived year-7s and give them choir practice for an hour a week during the school day. After six weeks, at a parents’ evening, the parents are treated to 220 year-7s, around half of whom will be eligible for pupil premium, singing “Moving On Up” in three-part harmony. I also speak as a parent when I say that it is an experience that truly makes the hair stand up on the back of one’s neck. As a team-building, confidence-building, stress-relieving exercise for students, this is hard to beat. The music lessons then continue as part of the curriculum until the end of year 9, when GCSE choices are made.
For a rewarding music experience for all pupils, therefore, schools just need to provide the willingness to give music the opportunity to thrive: the room to do it in and the expert teachers with the enthusiasm to teach it. Therein lies the problem. As noble Lords have said, schools are under pressure. Teachers are leaving the profession and, from our experiences, new teachers are hard to find. Reintroducing bursaries in 2024 for music teachers can only be a good thing, but it will take time for that to filter through. The value of music must be recognised so that teachers, who are vital to any subject, may be persuaded to stay and can see their work valued.
Taught properly by specialist music teachers, the value of music can be as an effective way to foster the benefits of teamwork for all, to improve behaviour, to reduce stress and to benefit cognitive learning skills in maths and communication for a minimal cost. Why would anyone not encourage this?
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, it is great to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and like others I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boateng for securing, and the way he introduced, this debate.
The evidence of unequal access to music education is clear. My daughter, Ruth, had private instrument lessons and now her production of “La Traviata” opens on the ENO stage next week. Our 12 year-old, Coco, has private piano lessons and is learning the power of practice as she struggles on through her grade 7, but their privilege in having parents who can afford tuition is clear.
I recently read an excellent book by Jude Rogers, entitled The Sound of Being Human. In it, she quotes the cognitive psychologist, Professor Daniel Levitin. He points out that the earliest human-made artefacts were musical instruments, including a 60,000 year-old bone flute found in Slovenia. Singing around a campfire helped early humans to stay awake and ward off predators, but it also helped us develop co-operation and turn-taking, strengthening human group dynamics. Not only does Levitin find that music is at the very core of being human but he finds that it is absolutely core to the brain development of children. It encourages different parts of the brain to work together in an integrated way, and the curiosity that in turn allows the development of language is formed from there. Three separate parts of the brain are connected by conversation through music: the most advanced with the most mechanical, connecting our most primitive with our most advanced selves.
The science around how music triggers subconscious memory is also well known. The neuroscience is clear. Music must be a core subject, especially in early years education. So how is it going? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I have been reading last month’s Ofsted report on music education in England, which was published with the headline:
“Music teaching too variable in quality and often not given enough time”.
The report says:
“The inequalities in provision that we highlighted in our last subject report … persist. There remains a divide between the opportunities for children and young people whose families can afford to pay for music tuition and for those who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds”.
We have also heard today about the decline in GCSE and A-level music entries since the EBacc was introduced 13 years ago. Yet, in the last 20 years, vocational music qualifications taken in schools have rocketed.
I remind the House of my education interests, especially as a member of Pearson’s qualification committee. Has any thought been given to the impact on vocational music if the Government proceed with defunding BTECs to prioritise money for T-levels, which contain no music, as we have heard, and will have to be significantly reformed if they are to be a part of the advanced BS that the Prime Minister proposes? The decline in the music teaching workforce is also deeply worrying. Two years ago, we were recruiting into initial teacher training at 71% of target, and last year at 64%. If the National Foundation for Educational Research is correct, just 31% of target will be met this year. What is the evidence that a £10,000 bursary is enough?
In closing, I ask the Minister to reflect with her colleagues on the need for a change of approach. I am pleased that the Prime Minister wants a more balanced post-16 curriculum, but we need the same rebalancing throughout the secondary curriculum. We need a change to the accountability system of the EBacc and Progress 8 to give much-needed oxygen for the creative subjects. As the minister knows, AI is marching on apace. Our current curriculum is equipping our children to be outcompeted by technology. Our competitive advantage against machines is to be better humans. What better way to prepare our children for their human future than by ensuring that they have a strong music education?
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, on his passionate introduction to this debate. I start by quoting from the letter co-signed by music directors Edward Gardner, Mark Elder and Antonio Pappano on the proposed cuts to the English National Opera, which appeared in the Times yesterday:
“These cuts will put a stranglehold on the artistic future of the company, wherever it is based. Opera should be available to everyone — this is the founding premise of ENO …This isn’t levelling up, it is the killing off of the art form”.
There is a sense in which these words are emblematic of the struggle facing not only classical music but all the arts in this country, although the ENO is of course under particular threat.
We need to recognise, too, the ecology of the arts and the reality that industry and education work together and education does not exist in isolation. It is part of a wider ecology, which should also include the widest possible work and educational opportunities in music—and not just in the UK, but Europe too. What signal is now being relayed by these proposed cuts—and with the music director himself now resigning in protest at these cuts—to young people currently at school who are considering a career in music?
We have reached a crunch point. Some blame the Arts Council but, ultimately, this is the end result of 13 years of this Government’s severe funding cuts to the arts, both in direct funding and to local authorities. Of course, it is the funding cuts, both in education and the arts themselves, that are a major factor in increasing inequality in educational provision in the arts. As the Independent Society of Musicians says in its excellent briefing, from which others have quoted, music education is in “serious decline” in England and the situation “requires government intervention”. Look no further than that independent schools have mean yearly music budgets that are over five times greater than those of maintained schools. However, I also say to a potential future Government that, before they target independent schools, they should consider the educational models that may be driving that spending on the arts. This is not just about rich parents. These models may well be in opposition to the current knowledge-rich curriculum and academic educational environment in the state sector, where it is becoming increasingly hard for individual participation, performance and expression in the arts to gain a foothold.
At the heart of this constricting philosophy, of course, are the EBacc and Progress 8, which need to be removed. As the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, pointed out, since 2010, GCSE music entries have fallen by 36%—12.5% in the last year alone—and A-level music entries by 45%. Moreover, Cambridge Assessment data tells us that only 5.4% of young people from groups that experience high social deprivation took GCSE music; the EBacc will again exacerbate this.
As others have pointed out, there is a growing teacher recruitment crisis in music. It is good news that bursaries for teachers of arts subjects have been reintroduced, although since these bursaries are worth only just over a third of those for science subjects, this has to be heavily qualified good news. The National Foundation for Educational Research predicted earlier this year that music will reach only 63% of the target for teacher recruitment, as opposed to 98% or more for chemistry and biology, for example. Science subjects should of course be supported, but does the Minister agree that it is difficult to interpret the stark difference in the value of these bursaries as anything other than discriminatory?
I am a firm believer in bringing music properly back into schools, where there is the greatest likelihood of universal access, but as long as we have music hubs they should be supported. Yet it is clear that the sector has considerable concerns about this, with less money now going to hubs than to pre-hub music services, as well as a serious cut in the number of hubs themselves.
Finally, as others have asked, what happened to the £90 million arts premium, promised in the last Conservative Party manifesto? Will the Minister say something about that?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, like every Member of your Lordships’ House who has spoken in this debate, I extend my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Boateng. Even he must be surprised at the quality of the debate that followed his brilliant introduction. I have learned so much, as a non-musician and someone who cannot sing in tune or play an instrument but loves listening to music, from the contributions from all over the Chamber this evening.
I want to concentrate on the question of inequality, the subject of my noble friend Lord Boateng’s Question, and speak up in favour of music hubs. It is deplorable that the National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain still draws only around 50% of its members from state schools, and it has been like that for years. Surely one simple target we could set today would be to express the hope that that percentage will grow in the next few years, and that we learn how to measure it.
Work by the Child Poverty Action Group in its Cost of the School Day campaign found that low-income families experience barriers to accessing music education:
“Music is a subject that creates additional costs for families when their children want to participate fully. Children in both primary and secondary schools have told us that instrument tuition usually comes with an additional cost for families: not only the cost of the tuition itself, but also the purchase or hire of an instrument so children can practise outside their dedicated lesson time”.
Everyone agrees that there is a need for more and better music in schools. Schools generate interest and encourage development, and the responsibility for supplying that lies with the hubs established under the music hub investment programme since 2012. There are over 100 hubs in all, and DfE money to support their work has been distributed on an agency basis by Arts Council England. We have heard this evening that the number of hubs is to be reduced to just 43 next year. Can the Minister explain to me why that is so?
Though hubs did and do so much good work with the money they receive, the last 10 years have seen widespread concern about a fall in music teaching in schools—we have heard that in the debate this evening. There has been no authoritative evaluation as to whether the first 10 years of the national plan for music education have been a success or a failure. No one therefore knows whether musical attainment and proficiency levels have improved or declined. We have, instead, a compliance regime which is excessive, intrusive, often contradictory and, in some cases, unattainable. With standstill funding at the moment, the only way to extend music education is for hubs to generate more activity on their own account, but so much staff time is taken up in meeting funding requirements that the ability to do so has been compromised. Frankly, they are drowning in process, such that the administration of the programme reduces the potential for, and thus acts against, the achievement of its aims.
The Government’s current answer to more and better music in schools was the publication in 2021 of the model music curriculum, which was recommended by the group chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, whose contribution I particularly enjoyed earlier in the debate. Music hubs are now expected to promote the model music curriculum as a condition of their funding. This is making compulsory to one party, the hubs, something which is entirely voluntarily to the other, the schools. Hubs are being made the enforcers of something entirely outside their powers. Surely we can do something to make life easier for the hubs and get a better relationship between them and the schools.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I had not planned to speak in this excellent debate, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. However, having chaired an online education conference on music education this morning, with speakers from schools, hubs and other music education bodies, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak briefly in the gap. I declare my interest as chair of a small classical music education charity. I will highlight three points which came across strongly, all of which have been echoed in the debate.
First, several speakers emphasised that delivery of the national plan and of the proposed realignment and reduction of music education hubs must address inequalities that arise from the widely varying needs of different local and regional areas. Schools in rural areas, such as Suffolk, disadvantaged by lack of local music resources or, indeed, scope for partnerships, face challenges which require forms of support from hubs that are different from those in better musically served urban areas. They also face extra costs, such as travel to music venues or events—it costs over £100 just to get there by bus—and greater difficulties in raising funds, whether from parents or from grant-makers like the excellent charity of the noble Lord, Lord Polak.
Secondly, hubs were seen as having key roles as champions of accessibility and inclusion and in promoting the partnerships which were such a crucial part of delivering music education, not least for special needs pupils. It was suggested that the national plan would benefit from having some more specific targets or outputs or, indeed, that core parts of the plan could even be made statutory.
Thirdly, one of the strongest common themes emerging—and, indeed, emerging this evening—was the need for a joined-up workforce strategy for music education and delivery of the national plan, consistent with the Government’s broader vision for the music and creative sector as a whole. Several speakers commented on what they saw as a mismatch between the ambitions of the plan and the ambitions of the DCMS strategy for the sector.
Many speakers raised issues of underrecruitment of specialist music teachers, of teachers leaving the profession early and of the pay and conditions offered to music teachers, making it less appealing as a career. There can be no effective music education without enough suitably qualified teachers.
Speakers at the conference radiated Lady Garden-like verve and commitment to delivering high-quality music education and addressing inequalities in access. They also highlighted many of the obstacles that we have heard about this evening. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government seek to tackle those.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, to echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, this has been a passionate debate of people who are all in one team—the music team—who seek to find ways to deal with the inequalities that exist. Summing up what I have taken from each contribution, I think the Minister has to answer three key questions. First is the need for great teachers—that has been obvious from the debate. Second is the need for increased resources and capacity, in particular to deal with the inequality of provision. Some of that inequality is directed towards those with disabilities, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Third is the need to value music education, not least in our curriculum.
I would like to turn back a page. The national plan outlines on page 7 the purpose of music education— I believe these words were written by the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, but even if they were not, they are very good words:
“For some, music will be the foundation of a career in one of the country’s most important and globally-recognised industries. For others, it will provide experiences and skills which develop their creativity. For many, music will simply be a source of joy, comfort and companionship throughout their lives”.
I will take that further. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, indicated, some fundamental skills are not mentioned in that report which are crucial to understanding why music education is so important. Music education contains a huge range of important and transferable life skills. For example, music provides an essential understanding of the key skill of being on time and in time. It involves working collaboratively; as we have heard, ensemble work, at whatever level, requires discipline and develops an ability to work closely with others on a shared outcome. It also involves confidence—the ability to speak out and express yourself. Listening skills are fundamental to music; the ability to hear others while performing yourself, to listen to your own performance and to appreciate changes in dynamics and timbre, all lead to better listening skills, which are transferable to much that we do in life. If the ability to use time well, work collaboratively with others and have good listening skills is important for the personal, social and economic well-being of our country, we must ensure that this subject area is recognised as a primary way of delivering the benefit.
However, to deliver real inclusion and game-changing music provision for all pupils, we need a fresh approach and increased investment. We need to raise the quality of music education, extend its reach and build the confidence of non-specialist teachers, particularly in primary schools, who have not had much of a mention tonight. Our music educators have the potential to improve lives and give young people the opportunity to develop and believe in themselves as individuals and contributing members of society. If all young people received high-quality curriculum music at school, supported by a properly trained workforce who could identify and encourage those who wished to go further, we would be in a much better position to allocate resources wisely. Without proper funding, equality of access will never be achieved.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in commending my noble friend Lord Boateng for securing this debate. I was particularly struck by his comments on his childhood experience and on the need for the value of music education to be reflected in funding and have time allocated to it. I regret to say that I struggle to remember the names of any of my music teachers, but I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord German, that inspiring teachers matter.
Clearly, there is consensus in this House that music education matters. I do not think anyone could reasonably argue with the Government’s refreshed national plan for music education’s aim of ensuring that
“all pupils receive a high-quality music education, strengthen the creative pipeline, and help create the musicians and audiences of the future”.
However, we need to see the Government take this from aims that we can all agree on to delivery for all children, irrespective of the type of school they attend. Access to music education, future careers and instruments should not be a postcode lottery or dependent on your parents’ income. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, even repairs can be costly.
It was good to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, about her commitment to the implementation of the national plan and of the excellent work of the London Music Fund. I should declare an interest in that I work for the Mayor of London.
My noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lord Watson of Invergowrie mentioned the reduction in the number of music hubs. It would be particularly helpful to understand from the Minister how that reduction will increase the quality and scope of music education and equality of access, rather than do the opposite.
As this debate has shown, this Government have potentially overseen a decline in music education, limiting equal access to the music education that should enable young people to be part of the music industry and the range of roles within it. As my noble friend Lord Watson of Wyre Forest highlighted, the Musicians’ Union estimates that the industry was worth £5.8 billion in 2019, just before the Covid pandemic.
My noble friend Lord Knight and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quoted the recent Ofsted subject report on music education, which found that inequalities identified in 2012 persist. Can the Minister outline how the Government plan to address this and to reverse the decline in music education? The noble Lord, Lord Polak, made a powerful argument for music education having a social good in giving young people a valuable opportunity potentially to stay out of gangs and out of trouble. It was inspiring to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, about the work in his school to inspire pupils to sing and learn collaboratively. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, mentioned the need for access to music for children with vision impairment, and my noble friend Lord Watson referred to the value of music education for children with hearing impairments. Can the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that children with disabilities, including vision and hearing impairments and other special educational needs, can have equal access to music education?
As I said at the start, and as has been clear from this hugely interesting debate, there is consensus that music education and ensuring equal access to instruments, tuition, exams and careers in this vital UK industry is hugely important, but more still needs to be done to ensure that this happens in practice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this debate and congratulate him on restructuring BBC Radio 4’s schedule to put on “Rethinking Music, the Next Generation” just as I was driving home after dinner on Saturday evening. I thought it was extremely well organised of the noble Lord to make sure that we were all particularly well briefed for this debate.
Noble Lords across the House know that there are many schools across the country that deliver high-quality music lessons to pupils and offer high-quality co-curricular opportunities. Equally, as we have heard so powerfully today, in some areas of the country music provision may be more limited, and equality of access is vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, set out.
To address this and to improve music education in England, a refreshed national plan for music education was published in June 2022. I echo the thanks of other noble Lords to my noble friend Baroness Fleet for her great work in leading and shaping that plan, and for her continued ambition to see it implemented with maximum impact. The plan clearly sets out the Government’s ambitions to 2030: that every child, regardless of circumstance, needs or geography, should have access to a high-quality music education that affords them the opportunity to progress their musical interests and talents.
The expectations set out in the plan, starting from early years, are unashamedly ambitious. They are informed by the excellent practice we see demonstrated by many schools, music hubs and music charities around the country. We heard today from my noble friend Baroness Fleet about the work of the London Music Fund. I have been lucky enough to attend one of its events and was incredibly impressed and moved by what I heard. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, talked about the work of the Koestler Trust and my noble friend Lord Polak referred to Restore the Music. I would of course be happy to meet with the founders of the charity—the Battle of the Bands sounds like a great event. As the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, and Lord Hampton, said, music helps to unlock not just our talent but our humanity, and, in choirs, orchestras and bands, that sense of being part of a shared endeavour. Certainly, my recent visit to the Harris Federation’s staff conference was exactly the kind of neck-tingling experience the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, described. Even though it was not my children who were playing, the choirs, bands and orchestra were extraordinary and very moving to watch.
As we heard from a number of noble Lords, when Ofsted published its recent music subject report last month, it highlighted that some schools do not allocate sufficient curriculum time to music. Schools are now expected to teach music at least one hour each week of the school year for key stages 1 to 3, alongside providing co-curricular opportunities to learn instruments, sing and form ensembles and choirs.
Higher levels of co-curricular participation have been reported this year, compared to May 2022. One of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, was the importance of the involvement of parents. The survey data are due to be released any day now, but I can share with the House advance notice that 63% of parents in the survey in June of this year stated their child had received singing lessons during the academic year, compared to 52% in May of last year. Some 57% of parents stated that their child had received musical instrument lessons, compared to 43% last year. Some 40% had watched a live performance, and 35% had taken part in one, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal.
Ofsted’s report also highlighted that curriculum quality of music provision is weak in some schools, with insufficient focus on musical understanding, sequencing and progression. To support schools to deliver a high-quality curriculum, we published a model music curriculum in 2021. According to a recent March survey of schools, some 59% of primary schools and 43% of secondary schools are now implementing this non-statutory guidance. The quality of curriculum was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I did not quite recognise the description that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, gave of music hubs as enforcers of the curriculum. It is non-statutory guidance, and that model music curriculum was put together by a panel of real experts in this area. I very much hope that it does not feel like it is being forced on people.
In partnership with their music hubs, we also invited every school to have a music development plan from this school year. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, asked about equality of access and the emphasis on each school having its own plan. That requires schools to consider how they will work together to improve the quality of music education. Our sample survey of school leaders in March showed that slightly under half of schools already had a music development plan in place. Of those without a plan, nearly half reported intending to put one in place in the current school year.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, asked about the reduction in the number of music hubs. As the House will be aware, there was a re-competition of the music hub programme, led by Arts Council England. That competition is currently under way. This will enable hub lead organisations to become more strategic and build a wider number of strong partnerships, so that children and young people receive high-quality support in every local area, including particularly those areas where provision may currently be limited. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised the importance of partnerships in this area.
As a number of noble Lords highlighted, we know that it is incredibly important that there is access for all levels of participation in music across the country. As part of levelling up, our plan is to provide an additional £2 million of funding to support the delivery of a music progression programme that will support up to 1,000 disadvantaged pupils to learn how to play an instrument or sing to a high standard, and over a sustained period.
A number of your Lordships quite rightly raised the importance of the quality of teaching, including my noble friend Lady Fleet and the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord German. Of course, this remains the single most important factor in improving outcomes for children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Just to clarify, I should say that close to 100% of hours taught in art, design and music are taught by a teacher with a relevant post A-level qualification. However, we are updating our teacher recruitment and retention strategy to build on our reforms to make sure that every child has an excellent teacher, including in music.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, asked how we are going to encourage more teachers. For those starting initial teacher training in music in the academic year 2024-25, we are, as the House heard, offering £10,000 tax-free bursaries, which we hope very much will attract more music teachers into the profession and support schools in delivering at least one hour of music lessons a week. We are also establishing four national music hub centres of excellence, which will focus on inclusion, continuing professional development, musical technology, and pathways to industry. We plan to appoint all the centres by the autumn of 2024.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of children with disabilities, particularly those who are visually impaired, blind or deaf. The national plan makes clear the importance of music being fully inclusive, and indeed it was widely praised by charities representing children with special educational needs and disabilities. The capital grant will emphasise the use of this funding for pupils with SEND, including blind and partially sighted pupils, and including the use of Braille or large print—in fact, that is across the whole curriculum, of course, not just for music—and we will consider how the capital funding could be used to provide Braille music machines in particular.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, talked about how music would be included in the advanced British standard. Of course, as he is aware, we will be consulting extensively on this, but I have seen in the documentation that has already been published that there are examples of possible combinations of major and minor subjects, and music could appear either as a major or a minor in future.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about the importance of a strong musical and cultural offer in all the regions of this country. I remind him of the incredible focus that was put on exactly this point through the cultural recovery fund.
My apologies; as ever, I have run out of time.
Again, in relation to location, I mention to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, the BRIT School North, a new 16-to-19 academy being opened in Bradford that will have a creative curriculum specialising in music and production.
There is still a lot to do to make our vision for music education become a reality, but I hope that in some way I have been able to reassure the House that together our reforms will lead to concrete action that every school and academy trust can take to improve their music education provision. As we have heard from all your Lordships this evening, studying and engaging with music is not a privilege; it is a vital part of a broad and ambitious curriculum, and our reforms ensure that all pupils will have access to high-quality music education and all the knowledge, joy and connection that brings.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I put a plug in for the Parliament Choir; it is always looking for new members.