House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Britain continues to advocate a return to a civilian-led Government in Sudan and improved humanitarian access. We have vigorously condemned the atrocities taking place in Darfur, as well as the other regions of Sudan.
Stephen Morgan
Labour stands in solidarity with the people of Sudan, who want only peace, justice and democracy, and who reject the generals’ war. What are the Government doing to support civilian organisations, including the Sudanese community here in the UK, to build unity in opposition to the conflict and military rule?
Mr Mitchell
It is not just Labour that stands in solidarity, but the whole House and the whole country. In respect of the civilian leadership, I spoke last Friday to Abdalla Hamdok, the civilian political leader. He and many of his colleagues will meet in Addis Ababa this week. We very much hope that those meetings will yield some progress.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The all-party parliamentary group on Sudan and South Sudan has heard how people in Darfur still face daily bombings, killing, rape, pillage and torture. Members of the Darfur community here are deeply worried about the ethnic cleansing. What is happening to try to reduce the flow of weapons and to get urgent humanitarian aid to the 24 million people who desperately need it?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. We have recently contributed £600,000 to open-source investigative reporting to verify and preserve information on attacks on civilians and breaches of international humanitarian law. As she will know, we are providing £22 million of support for Sudan—£5 million was announced recently to help people who have gone across the border into Chad and South Sudan. She will also know that something like 19 humanitarian workers have been murdered, but we are doing everything we can to try to get aid and help in.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
Since Hamas’s brutal terror attacks on 7 October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have visited the region and have spoken and met extensively with counterparts totalling almost 20 countries, as part of our extensive diplomatic efforts to prevent escalation, to sustain the prospect of regional peace and to secure the free movement home of British nationals in Gaza and the release of hostages.
Chris Clarkson
It has been reported that the Palestinian Authority is to pay up to $3 million a month in so-called martyr salaries to the families of dead and captured Hamas terrorists. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those payments to rapists, torturers and murderers, some of whom have killed Brits? Will he use his good offices to ensure that no British aid money has gone towards this filthy practice?
James Cleverly
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we always ensure that UK aid money is protected from misappropriation. I can confirm to him and the House that no British aid money goes directly to the Palestinian Authority. We have raised this issue with the Palestinian Authority and highlighted our belief that it is not conducive to good relations and a future two-state solution.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What are the prospects of a two-state solution, given the pace of Israeli settlements on the west bank?
James Cleverly
The Government’s long-standing position is that we oppose settlement expansion, for the reasons I have highlighted extensively in the conversations that I have had with the Israeli Government and the leadership of countries in the region. Despite the terrible circumstances we are experiencing, there is a renewed desire for a meaningful resolution that means that the terrible images that we saw on 7 October will never be repeated.
Marsha De Cordova
Close to 1,000 constituents have contacted me, deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza, the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding and the need for a ceasefire. Nearly 5,000 people have died in Gaza, including 1,700 children. While the whole House rightly condemned the Hamas atrocities, we must be unequivocal in our condemnation of violations of international law. Will the Foreign Secretary set out in what circumstances he believes it is legal for Israel to cut off water, fuel, food and electricity in Gaza?
James Cleverly
There is always much debate in this House about the interpretation of international humanitarian law. I have raised directly with my Israeli counterparts the need, in whatever actions they take to secure their protection, defend Israeli citizens and secure the release of hostages, for them to act in accordance with international law. I have received assurances from the Israeli President to that effect.
Steven Bonnar
There have been countless reiterations from the Israeli authorities, including in a joint speech with the Prime Minister last week, that they are taking precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, more than 4,650 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza in the last 16 days. Palestinian lives matter, so what more action, other than just repeating promises about civilian protection, is the Foreign Secretary’s Department taking meaningfully to ensure that innocent Palestinians are kept safe?
James Cleverly
I am on record mourning the Palestinian lives that have been lost in this conflict, just as we mourn, and I mourn, the loss of Israeli lives in this terrible situation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the UK Government take the loss of life, from whichever community, incredibly seriously.
I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that Hamas routinely and consciously put civilians in harm’s way, specifically to generate fatalities that they then use as part of their media operations. We are conscious of that and the Israeli armed forces are conscious of that—that is why, they explained to me, they have given notice of future areas of military operation. We have seen evidence that Hamas are routinely preventing Palestinians from leaving areas that are going to be engaged by the Israeli Defence Forces.
Karl MᶜCartney
In contrast to the last two questions from the Opposition Benches, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and our Prime Minister for their important recent visits to our ally Israel. The Government’s unequivocal message that Israel has the right and must be able to defend itself against the Hamas terrorist group is right and just. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to support Israel in its efforts to secure the release of the 200-plus captives still held in Gaza, including any British citizens? Can the Secretary of State ensure that they receive immediate assistance from the international Red Cross?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend reminds the House that the Government remain focused on the protection of British nationals in Israel, the west bank and, of course, Gaza. It would be inappropriate for me to go into detail, but I can assure him and the House that we speak with all parties who we believe could have influence on those holding hostages: Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and others. It is incredibly difficult. We do not have direct lines of communications, but we will not rest—we will not rest—in trying to secure the release of hostages and the evacuation of British nationals from Gaza.
James Sunderland
I am clear that the international community, backed by the UN, must now work together to dial down the rhetoric, open humanitarian corridors, encourage restraint and protect life. Will the Foreign Secretary commit the UK to expanding the Abraham accords as a priority, which will not only bring strategic partners to the table but may offer a future peace between Israel and Palestine?
James Cleverly
I have said regularly how much I value the Abraham accords. The improving of relationships between Israel and the Arab nations in its near neighbourhood is an extremely positive step. There is a realistic belief that part of the aim of the attack of 7 October was to derail future normalisation and negotiations. Again, I think that highlights the fact that Hamas are not a friend to the Palestinian people. They are not trying to improve relationships between Israel and the Arab world. They brought down the Oslo agreements, and they have consistently blocked all attempts to normalise relationships between Israel and the wider Arab world. We must not let them win in that endeavour, and we must work to bring peace between the Palestinian people and the Israelis.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have been inundated with emails from constituents terrified for the future of the internally displaced Palestinians in Gaza. Since 7 October, nearly 600,000 internally displaced persons have been sheltering in 150 United Nations Relief and Works Agency facilities, 35 UNRWA staff have been killed, and 40 UNRWA installations have been damaged. When the ground invasion inevitably starts, where are these people meant to go? Who is expected to host them? Who will administer them, and where will the support come from? Finally and fundamentally, what does the Foreign Secretary believe is the Israeli politicians’ long-term objective?
James Cleverly
All the conversations that we have had with Israel, with Egypt and with intermediaries who are able to maintain lines of communication with Hamas have been about the preservation of human life. Let me put this on the record once again: we completely support Israel’s right, and indeed duty, of self-defence. We are only just starting to see the scale of the brutality. Video evidence retrieved from those individuals who brutalised and murdered Israeli citizens on 7 October has now been put in the public domain, and it is worse than any of us could have imagined. We absolutely stand by Israel’s right to self-defence, and we have said that we want to work with Israel, with Egypt, with the countries in the near neighbourhood and, of course, with those who are the de facto Government in Gaza to minimise civilian casualties. We have had that commitment from Israel; we have had no such commitment from Hamas.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Since I raised this question with the Prime Minister last week, indiscriminate airstrikes and a total siege blocking food, water and medical supplies have killed thousands of innocent Palestinian men and women and more than 1,000 children. Let us be absolutely clear in this House: this is now beyond a humanitarian catastrophe. Even as we stand here today, innocent blood continues to be spilt on the streets of Gaza, and mosques, churches, schools, hospitals, bakeries, water plants and homes continue to be flattened by the Israeli military.
I have a very simple question for the Foreign Secretary. Just what will it take? How many thousands of innocent Palestinians must be slaughtered before this Government condemn the brutality and bloodshed?
James Cleverly
We have consistently said that we want to minimise further loss of life, and the lives lost among the Palestinian people are of course something for which we grieve, but we must never lose sight of the fact that during the period since 7 October, thousands of rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel. Indeed, according to an assessment that we now have, one of the most high-profile losses of lives in Gaza, which was covered extensively by the British and international media, was likely caused by a rocket emanating from Gaza and targeting Israel. While I respect the hon. Gentleman’s passion about the preservation of life, and I assure him that I share his passion, we must be thoughtful, and we must remember why this is happening. It must not be forgotten that the single largest murder of Jews since the holocaust was initiated by Hamas, who then put Palestinians intentionally in harm’s way as part of their operations.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
One of the appalling hallmarks of the terrorist attack by Hamas on the state of Israel has been hostage taking, and we are now seeing hostage taking increasingly being used in state-sponsored terrorism. With that in mind, and given the number of British hostages who are currently being held, does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary think that now is the time to appoint a prime ministerial envoy for hostages, with full diplomatic immunity, so that the British state can keep in touch with Britons who are being held and use our soft power to negotiate their release?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We have one of the largest and most effective diplomatic networks, so our diplomats on the ground are often best placed to initiate those negotiations, but he raises a good point and I will take his suggestion seriously.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I, like many others, have received hundreds if not thousands of emails from my constituents expressing their despair at what they are seeing happening in Gaza. It is more than a humanitarian emergency. Does the Secretary of State agree with Labour’s calls to work with international partners to give UN agencies such as UNRWA the long-term resources they need, as well as to insist that fuel is allowed into Gaza?
James Cleverly
The Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Development Minister and I have had extensive and regular talks on ensuring that humanitarian supplies get to the Palestinian people in Gaza. Indeed, the Development Minister has virtually daily conversations with Martin Griffiths, the head of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the Prime Minister has recently announced an additional £30 million of humanitarian support on top of our pre-existing £27 million, making us one of the most generous contributing nations to humanitarian support for Palestinians in Gaza.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
George Mitchell, the great American peacemaker, said that diplomacy was
“700 days of failure and one day of success”.
Labour recognises the hard, quiet diplomacy required to secure the release of hostages and eventually long-term peace, but in this bloody war we cannot afford 700 days without success. Overnight, we saw reports of the possible release of 50 hostages, only to learn that those talks had stumbled. Can the Foreign Secretary update the House on the progress to secure the release of all the 200 hostages so cruelly taken by Hamas terrorists?
James Cleverly
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the calm professionalism that he has displayed throughout. I can assure him and the House that this remains an absolute focus of our attention. It was raised by the Prime Minister, by me, by my right hon. Friend the Development Minister and by others in our bilateral conversations with leaders around the region, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will stay relentlessly focused on this.
Mr Lammy
The situation in Gaza is heartbreaking and deeply troubling. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israel must follow the laws of war by taking every possible step to protect civilians and by ensuring that aid is rapid, safe and unhindered, that blocks to water, food, medicines and fuel are lifted immediately, and that Palestinians who are forced to flee are not permanently displaced? Does he also agree that upholding these laws is not just a legal and moral obligation, but necessary to prevent Israel’s campaign from undermining long-term prospects for peace and stability.
James Cleverly
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is exactly the tone of the conversations we are having. The preservation of civilian life remains a priority, and we discuss this regularly and at every level with the Israeli Government. Of course we reflect on the point that Israel itself—as well as the countries in the near neighbourhood—is trying to prevent this from becoming a regional conflict. As I say, professionalism and restraint by the Israeli Defence Forces are an important part of preventing this from becoming a regional conflict.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Has the Secretary of State seen any evidence, been made aware of any evidence or had reasonable grounds to believe that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in its response to the Hamas atrocities on 7 October?
James Cleverly
I am not in a position, and indeed it is not my role, to make an assessment of the interpretation of events that are unfolding as we speak. There will, of course, be assessments of the nature of international humanitarian law. We are trying to make sure that, in all of its actions for its legitimate self-defence, Israel abides by international law.
Brendan O’Hara
If it is not the Foreign Secretary’s responsibility to make that assessment, I wonder whose it is. He knows that international humanitarian law is unambiguous in saying that the collective punishment of a civilian population is illegal. Is he telling us that he is unaware, or has seen no evidence, that people have been forced from their homes and that their water, food, power and access to medicine have been cut off? Or is he actually saying that all of this has happened but the UK Government have unilaterally decided that international humanitarian law does not apply to this conflict?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman undermines his own question by making the assertion that his interpretation of international humanitarian law is, by default, one to which I have to subscribe. His definition of what is happening is not one that I necessarily agree with.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
Hamas is responsible for these appalling terrorist attacks. We know that Iran has been a long-term funder and supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran’s support for these militant groups has a destabilising impact on regional and international security, and we remain ever watchful of its actions.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that answer. Iran’s fingerprints are all over Hamas’s brutal massacre in Israel. Iran’s blatant arming, funding—worth $100 million a year—and training of terror groups around the region is no secret. Hamas’s leaders have even publicly lavished praise on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for their support. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must be absolutely clear about the threat posed by Iran abroad and at home, and that now is the time for a policy reset?
James Cleverly
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment of Iran’s malign influence. The Government and the FCDO are well aware of this, and I can assure him that we have been clear-eyed throughout the work we do with regard to Iran and its influence in the region. We will remain ever watchful. I am sure that no reset is required, because we are very conscious of Iran’s impact on the region.
Henry Smith
What diplomatic efforts are His Majesty’s Government taking to protect and, indeed, enhance the Abraham accords in the light of the fact that the Iranian regime is clearly seeking to engender discord and, indeed, conflict in the middle east?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Abraham accords have been a force for good. We need to protect them and ideally enhance them. Anything that sees greater co-operation between Israel and the Arab world has to be a step in the right direction when it comes to the creation of a sustainable two-state solution. I can assure him that we remain focused on that outcome.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
This Government have rightly imposed sanctions on those states and organisations that support terrorism. Can the Secretary of State therefore clarify that if it is found, following an independent investigation, that Israel has also broken international law and committed war crimes in Gaza, his Government will consider the introduction of appropriate sanctions?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate about our future response to future events. At the moment, I am dealing with events in the here and now. I am trying to prevent loss of life. I am in constant conversations with the leadership in the region to try to prevent further Israeli and Palestinian loss of life.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting families whose loved ones have been taken hostage. They came here to share their testimony, which was deeply moving. They raised the fact that Iran is very much behind this, so why have we yet to proscribe the IRGC? It was time a year ago, so it is surely time now. What is the excuse for waiting?
James Cleverly
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the plight of the families who have either lost loved ones or have loved ones who are still held hostage in Gaza. I will be meeting families who have members held hostage later.
As I have said regularly, we are well aware of Iran’s influence. Any decision about proscription will be a cross-Government decision. The advantages and disadvantages of proscribing will always be at the heart of any decision-making process, but as the hon. Lady knows, we do not comment on future sanctions or proscription designations.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), I emphasise that Labour has been calling on the Government for many months to proscribe the IRGC. Evidence is emerging of Iranian involvement in the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel. We also understand that the United States has called on the United Kingdom to follow its example. I therefore press the Foreign Secretary: when will the Government act, by using either existing terrorism legislation or a new process of proscription directed at the IRGC?
James Cleverly
I remind the House that the IRGC—as well as certain individuals who are members of it—is sanctioned in its entirety. As I said in response to the question of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), no international measure comes without cost. There are advantages and disadvantages to proscription, which fundamentally would mean that we could have no direct diplomatic relations with Iran. As I have said, we always take those issues seriously, and any decision will be made cross-Government, but we do not speculate on future sanctions or proscription designations.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
The FCDO has referred more than 1,450 people under ACRS pathway 3 to the Home Office. We are supporting more than 900 Afghans in third countries, for instance with accommodation, and we are grateful to Pakistan for the work we do together to that end. Of course, we remain committed to relocating all eligible Afghan families to the UK. We are working closely with the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that they all have suitable accommodation on arrival.
Janet Daby
Before I ask my supplementary question, I would like to put on record that my thoughts are with everyone who is affected by the disturbing scenes we have witnessed in Israel and Palestine.
Shortly after the evacuation in Afghanistan, I told Ministers that many of my constituents have relatives in Afghanistan who work for the British Government. What is the Minister doing to keep the Government’s promise of further support for those who helped the UK’s mission in Afghanistan?
Leo Docherty
We continue our diplomatic efforts, including through supporting those Afghans in third countries. We have relocated more than 21,000 Afghans under the Afghans relocations and assistance policy—ARAP—and the ACRS, and we will continue to do that.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Last week, the Government made the right decision to lift the quota for pathway 3, thus allowing all eligible British Council contractors to come to the UK. However, many contractors and their families are waiting in Pakistan for clearance to come to the UK because accommodation has yet to be arranged. May I urge the Government to resolve that housing issue urgently, given the Pakistani authorities’ threat to return the contractors to Afghanistan next month? That would be a disaster, and we need to sort it out now.
Leo Docherty
We are acutely aware of the challenge to which my hon. Friend alludes. We are working at pace with our mission in Pakistan and we are seized of the natural justice required and the fact that we need to do our duty to those people. That is why the full pace of our institutional effort is focused on doing just that. We look forward to keeping colleagues updated.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I, too, wish to put on record my solidarity with those who are living in fear and heartbreak in Gaza and Israel.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan was an absolute debacle. It is a continuing source of shame to this country that so many people who helped us, trusted us, relied on us, have been absolutely abandoned. We are hearing horrifying reports from those who have done the right thing and taken terrible risks to escape to Pakistan, who are now living in constant fear of arrest or deportation because this Government have left them in limbo. My question is simple: how many are still waiting and how much longer will they have to wait?
Leo Docherty
Respectfully, we have not left them in limbo. The situation is extremely difficult. It is difficult because of the depredations of—let me be very clear—the tyrannical regime of the Taliban; that is why we are in this situation. We have relocated more than 21,000 people, and we continue to work at pace with our mission in Pakistan and elsewhere to ensure that these people, despite the local troubles and difficulties, get the support they need.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I talk to Martin Griffiths, the head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, almost every day, and on Friday I attended a meeting with development Ministers convened by Samantha Power, the head of the United States Agency for International Development.
Deidre Brock
How are the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers working with international counterparts to prevent any deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure in Israel and Palestine?
Mr Mitchell
By drawing all parties’ attention to the international rules of war.
Vicky Foxcroft
At a vigil outside Parliament this morning, the names of some of the more than 2,000 children killed so far in Gaza were read out. Children in Gaza have begun writing their names on their hands so that they can be identified and buried with their families when they are killed. What action are the Government taking to prevent more children being harmed in Israel’s military action and to ensure a rapid end to this conflict?
Mr Mitchell
The Prime Minister set out yesterday very clearly what our policy is. We are doing everything we can to protect children. British aid is already making a difference by supporting the international relief effort, which is going in through Rafah.
Kerry McCarthy
I completely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) just said about the impact on children. Trucks at the Rafah crossing are welcome, but the aid getting through is nowhere near enough to avert humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Fuel is urgently needed for the desalination plants that would ensure drinking water and for the energy generators that would power hospitals, which would prevent huge loss of life. Why is that fuel not being allowed through?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is entirely right that the Rafah crossing is currently the only way we can get food and relief supplies in. Supplies are coming to El Arish, but the number of trucks going through every day is far too small. We will continue to press all the relevant authorities to allow humanitarian support and aid of the type she describes through the Rafah crossing to help those whose circumstances are precisely as she describes.
Martyn Day
With thousands of innocent civilians dead, tens of thousands injured, hundreds of thousands displaced and a denial of humanitarian need, what level of civilian suffering will it take before this Government back calls for a ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman sets out the tremendous suffering that is happening, but he, like me, will agree with the Prime Minister that the source of this was the appalling terrorist, murderous action by Hamas, which, as the Foreign Secretary said a few minutes ago, killed more Jewish people than on any day since the second world war and the holocaust.
Kate Hollern
As the fighting continues, the UN estimates that about 160 women will give birth every day in Gaza; meanwhile the lives of at least 120 newborns in incubators are at risk due to lack of power, fuel, medicine and water. These women and children are not terrorists. Will the Secretary of State listen to the increasing calls for a ceasefire, which would be the best way to ensure the release of hostages, who are in a terrible situation, and the delivery of aid for Palestinian citizens?
Mr Mitchell
On delivering aid and support, I had the opportunity to meet a very large number of the British charities and non-governmental organisations that are trying to help in Gaza, and I keep in very close touch with them. On the issue of access and support through these trusted agencies, we will do everything that we can to help.
Sarah Owen
Thousands of innocent people have been killed, and aid workers are included in that devastating loss. UN experts on the ground have given repeated warnings that the current Israeli military strategy could lead to the permanent ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that there were mechanisms to deal with breaches of international law. Can the Minister tell us more on what the Government are doing to support independent investigations and the International Criminal Court?
Mr Mitchell
The answer to the hon. Lady’s perfectly proper question is that international and legal organisations all around the world will be looking at this and giving their opinions.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
People in Cheadle are deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and welcome the doubling of aid that was announced by the Prime Minister. However, we know that Hamas have a history of diverting and misusing aid that is given to them for their own terrorist purposes. What steps can we take to ensure that this much-needed aid gets to the people in need?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is quite right to warn about the proper use of aid. I can tell her that this is probably the most scrutinised programme of humanitarian relief and support that Britain has. If ever we see anything that we think is untoward, we immediately stop using that group. None the less, we operate through trusted partners, and the proof is that they are trusted and are partners.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Last week, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency stated that Hamas had stolen fuel, medical supplies and food intended for Palestinians. It then subsequently deleted that statement, but the way that Hamas have repeatedly compromised UNRWA operations in Gaza has been well-documented in recent years. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give that that aid will be targeted correctly and will reach the people who so desperately need it?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is right that UNRWA operates in difficult circumstances, but I can tell him that we talk to it all the time about the proper use of these resources and we will do everything we can always to make sure that they go to the intended place.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
My constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden and I thank the Foreign Secretary for all the work that he is doing to ensure that aid is getting to Gaza, but we know that the UN has stated that it needs at least 100 trucks a day to take the aid to those who desperately need it. Can my right hon. Friend set out what conversations he is having with his Israeli and Egyptian counterparts to make sure that that aid is getting to where it needs to be?
Mr Mitchell
Foreign Office officials, the Foreign Secretary and others are talking to all the relevant authorities in Egypt and Israel. My hon. Friend will understand that the key thing is to increase the number of lorries that are getting through Rafah. The current number is wholly inadequate. I talk to Martin Griffiths virtually every day about the operations that the UN is conducting to try to beef up that number.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that we would finally challenge actions that undercut legitimate aspirations for Palestinian statehood, and there are none more fundamental than 57 years of breaches of the fourth Geneva convention by the illegal occupation of the territories, and then with 750,000 Jewish settlers being placed in those territories making a two-state solution very, very difficult. Are we actually now going to do something about that, or does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the meaningful resolution to which the Foreign Secretary referred may include the transfer of the people of Gaza and Gaza itself out of the state of Israel into the hands of another state or state system, and, more concerningly, that that would be followed by the expulsion of the Palestinians from the west bank?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend has a long-standing and principled view on these matters. I do not share his view and nor do the Government. Nor do I think that the latter part of his question and the specific points that he made are likely to come about.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State for Development and Africa for the constructive cross-party way that we have been able to work together since I was appointed to this post in such grim times? He will know that every minute counts right now in Gaza. Incubators have been switched off and children are drinking dirty water. Fresh water and power are the most pressing issues, but despite our shared hopes of progress this week, fuel was not permitted in the convoys that entered Gaza, while several hospitals have been hit and many given multiple warnings to evacuate. Can he share with the House what the Government are doing to help broker an agreement that will protect hospitals and get fuel into Gaza so that international law is upheld, hospitals can power up and water and power can flow?
Mr Mitchell
First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. It is one that I held for five years from 2005 and I very much hope that she will hold it for five years—[Laughter.] It is one of the best jobs in opposition and in government. She will know that we are having humanitarian discussions with everyone, intent as we are on getting humanitarian supplies to those who need them. She asked specifically about attacking a hospital. Attacking a hospital is a war crime. We should be in no doubt about that.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
Following the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh last month, the Government called for an end to the violence, direct talks between parties to the conflict and urgent humanitarian access. We have provided £1 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to meet humanitarian needs, and of course the UN has had access to the region. We encourage Azerbaijan to continue co-operation in that regard.
David Duguid
I thank the Minister for his answer, and I refer the House to my role as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Azerbaijan. What support are the UK Government and British companies providing in the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan to help to clear the landmines laid by Armenian forces, as well as to support the reconstruction of the towns and communities that were destroyed and looted during the occupation?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge on this subject, and I am pleased to confirm that the UK is continuing to assess humanitarian needs in the region, including in relation to de-mining in Armenia and Azerbaijan. We have provided £1 million to the UN development programme since 2020 to aid de-mining efforts in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and our embassy in Baku has had discussions with the Azerbaijani Government on reconstruction and reintegration of the region.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
While unspeakable horrors unfold in Israel and Palestine, we must not forget other conflicts around the world in which crimes against humanity have been committed against innocent civilians. Following Azerbaijan’s military intervention in Nagorno-Karabakh, almost all of the ethnic Armenian population has been forced to flee. With more than 100,000 people displaced, and reports that as few as 50 but a maximum of 1,000 remain in the region, does the Minister agree that it bears the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing?
Leo Docherty
I do not agree, but I should say that we have urged both sides to resume dialogue. Talks will be the basis of a sustainable peace. I have made that point to Foreign Ministers from both countries in recent weeks. I will make that point again when I travel to both countries in the coming weeks.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
In response to the terrorist attacks on 7 October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, other Ministers and I have of course engaged intensively with allies in the region, but we are equally determined to deliver on other vital priorities, notably supporting Ukraine, tackling illegal migration, supporting stability in sub-Saharan Africa and alleviating poverty around the world.
Mr Carmichael
The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the Government of France have announced today that they are sending their Foreign Minister to the United Nations Security Council to argue for a humanitarian truce in Gaza, which in their words would be capable of leading to a ceasefire and necessary for the distribution of aid to civilian populations. It would also allow the focus to concentrate on the release of hostages, which I would have thought would commend itself also to the Government of Israel. Will the Government support—
Mr Speaker
Order. Being first on the Order Paper is not permission to take all the time. Topicals should be short and sweet. The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that.
James Cleverly
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are trying to find every avenue to alleviate humanitarian suffering. We will be represented at senior ministerial level at the Security Council later today. We want to take action that will actually deliver aid and support to the Palestinian people who are suffering in Gaza.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
My sincere condolences go out to George Lowe’s family. Consular staff remain in contact with the Cypriot authorities and the family on this case. We passed to the Cypriot authorities a letter from George’s family regarding the investigation, and have followed up for a response, most recently on 5 October. I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s advocacy in this case. We will, of course, keep in touch to see what we can do.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On 27 June, this House passed Labour’s motion calling on the Government to bring forward within 90 days legislation to seize and repurpose Russian state assets for Ukraine’s recovery, but it has now been 120 days since that motion was passed and we have heard nothing but vague words. When will the Foreign Secretary do what Labour has called for and deliver what Ukraine needs by taking difficult but necessary steps to ensure that Russia pays?
James Cleverly
The state seizure of private assets is a serious act that we typically condemn in other countries. The Government have made it absolutely clear that the people who are responsible for brutalising Ukraine will ultimately pay for its reconstruction.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the prospect of a peaceful and secure Israel alongside a peaceful and secure Palestine—a two-state solution—is our best route to navigate these terrible situations successfully, and it will remain at the heart of UK foreign policy in the region.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
We are doing everything we can. The hon. Gentleman will understand that these are complex negotiations, both to get the food and other humanitarian supplies into the region and to deliver them to those who need them. All I can assure him of is that all those negotiations are taking place with vigour and speed.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
James Cleverly
With regard to the proscription of the IRGC, my hon. Friend will have heard the answer that I gave some minutes ago. The work that we are doing, in close co-ordination with the Home Secretary and her team, to ensure that communities here in the UK feel safe and secure remains an absolute priority for us. Limiting, and ideally stopping, the ability of organisations and countries to fund terrorism will remain a priority for us.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Mr Mitchell
In order to have a ceasefire, all parties have to agree to it. I refer the hon. Gentleman to other answers that have been given during this session of questions. We are doing everything we can to address the humanitarian problem that he sets out, and we will continue to do so.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Building on the legacy of successive Governments on the threat of antimicrobial resistance, will my right hon. Friend commit to building a coalition of higher-income countries pledging to improve access to antibiotics, diagnostics, education and prevention, which we all know are vital to stopping AMR?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: AMR is the third biggest killer now. Meetings took place at the UN General Assembly, and I was there in April attending an AMR meeting. We will do everything we can, and we are greatly enhanced in our abilities by the presence of Sally Davies, who is an envoy on AMR. I can tell my hon. Friend that this has the absolute attention of the Government.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is ingeniously asking the same question that she asked earlier. I can tell her that we are doing everything we can to address the issue she has raised. It is as much a concern to us as it is to her, and we will continue to do that.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is vital for peace that the rule of law is established and upheld in both Palestine and Israel. Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of whether the weakening of the judiciary in Israel will impact on legal decisions relating to the Israel defence forces’ rules of engagement in the current conflict?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend raises an important point. While I was in Israel prior to the 7 October incidents, we of course discussed the proposals for judicial reform. Those proposals have not yet been taken forward by the Israeli Government, but I can assure her and the House that we remain committed to international law and will always communicate that to all parties involved.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Mr Mitchell
The Government, along with their partners, are doing everything to try to progress humanitarian support and supplies into Gaza.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Strong parliamentary democracy is crucial to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has a central role as one of the oldest Commonwealth institutions, with you as one of our co-presidents, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend’s Department acknowledges that new legislation is needed to recognise the CPA as an international interparliamentary organisation, to keep it headquartered here in the UK. When does he plan to have that new legislation in place?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the extraordinary contribution that the CPA makes around the world. We are very anxious to address the issue she has raised and to find a mutually acceptable solution. I hope that this can be done by legislation once parliamentary time allows, but if it is not possible to place it in the King’s Speech, she will know that there are other ways of pursuing the matter.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
James Cleverly
I have no doubt that, in the aftermath of the brutal terrorist attacks on 7 October and Israel’s defensive response, there will be an assessment of what has happened. We would want any such assessment to be as comprehensive and independent as possible.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary make representations to his Pakistan counterpart about deeply worrying human rights abuses committed against Hindus and other minorities, especially women and girls subjected to forced conversion and forced marriage?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
Notwithstanding the challenges in Israel and Gaza, protecting freedom of religion or belief, including for minority communities, remains central to the UK Government’s human rights engagement, including in Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the persecution of religious communities, which includes Hindus, with Pakistan’s Prime Minister on 25 September.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
James Cleverly
As we have seen over and over again this morning, calling for a ceasefire is the easy bit; actually negotiating something meaningful is considerably harder. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box, we are working with all parties. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has made reference to Israel’s actions, but I remind the House that a ceasefire without Hamas stopping its bombardment of Israel is not a meaningful ceasefire.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
Last week, China put export restrictions on graphite, which is essential for electric vehicle batteries. Four out of 10 of the top producers of graphite are Commonwealth members. Will the Government pursue a partnership agreement on critical minerals with the Commonwealth to reinforce those supply chains?
James Cleverly
I commend my right hon. Friend on his pursuit of this subject, which I know was very much in his thinking when he was in my position. I can assure him that a critical minerals strategy is something that I regularly discuss with Commonwealth leaders and others, particularly in Africa. It is in their interest and ours that they protect their natural resources.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Let us have another try: has the international development Minister had direct discussions with his Israeli counterpart about getting fuel into Gaza? Once the fuel runs out, hospitals stop and people die.
Mr Mitchell
I have not had those discussions with my Israeli opposite number, but the hon. Gentleman may rest absolutely assured that the contact with the Israeli Government—not least during the visit of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary over the past few days—focuses on every aspect of this issue.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The war in Ukraine is undoubtedly the largest land war in Europe for decades. Notwithstanding other pressures around the world, will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reaffirm the UK’s commitment to its support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people?
James Cleverly
I can confirm to the House that Ukraine’s ability to defend itself remains a focus of the Government. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and I discuss this matter regularly, and I continue to have regular communications with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister. This matter may have fallen temporarily from the headlines of the British newspapers, but it has not fallen from the mind of the British Government.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
When atrocities take place, we have a duty to call them out. When Hamas murdered and kidnapped innocent civilians, we rightly called it out, and when Putin targeted innocent Ukrainians and Assad targeted hospitals, we expressed our horror in this House. Now we also have a duty to speak on behalf of innocent Palestinians who are being collectively punished, starved, and indiscriminately bombed in their homes by Israeli forces. Children’s bodies are lying in the street. It is wrong, and it is why we need a ceasefire. Will the Secretary of State convey that to his Israeli counterpart?
James Cleverly
Again, the hon. Lady asserts her interpretation of international law, which is not necessarily one that is shared by the Government. The preservation of all life, including Palestinian life, remains at the forefront of our thinking.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with Ministers Kamikawa of Japan and Wang Yi of China about their respective countries’ role in easing tensions in the Israel-Gaza conflict?
James Cleverly
I have not had the chance to speak with the Chinese Foreign Minister on this issue, but I have spoken a number of times with the Japanese Foreign Minister about it. Of course, we are more than happy to work with any international partner that can alleviate the pain and suffering of both Israelis and the Palestinian people, particularly those in Gaza, and we will continue to do so.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating Narges Mohammadi on being awarded the Nobel peace prize for her outstanding work to raise awareness of the struggle for women’s rights and equality in Iran. Will the Minister publicly support the brave women who are campaigning against the forced hijab laws in Iran, and once again, will he commit to proscribing the woman-hating regime that is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
James Cleverly
On the proscription of the IRGC, the hon. Gentleman will have heard the answers I have already given a number of times from the Dispatch Box, but I can assure him that we continue to stand with the brave women of Iran, who are standing up for their rights in the face of their Government’s oppression. Indeed, I met with women Iranian campaigners a number of weeks ago, and the hon. Gentleman and the House should know that we stand in full solidarity with them.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and their teams for their important diplomatic efforts in the middle east in recent days. The potential implications of the conflict between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas are deeply concerning for the wider region, so can the Foreign Secretary update the House on the steps the Government are taking to prevent this conflict from spreading to the wider region?
James Cleverly
In the conversations I had with the Israeli Government in the immediate aftermath of the 7 October attacks, they expressed a desire for this not to turn into a regional conflict. That desire was echoed by all the leaders of the Arab world that I have spoken to. It remains an absolute priority for this Government, and indeed the Governments of the region, to prevent this from turning into a regional conflict. That is exactly what Hamas wants, and therefore is exactly what we do not want.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Is it not simply impossible to get aid in on the scale that is needed if we are to end the humanitarian nightmare under way in Gaza without a ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member has heard the detailed responses from the Dispatch Box today on the difficulties entailed, and I reiterate what I said earlier: we are doing everything we can to try to make sure that we help those who are suffering in Gaza today.
War in Ukraine
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the war in Ukraine.
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Since I last updated the House in my opening remarks in the debate on Ukraine on 11 September, the situation on the ground has remained largely unchanged. Slow and steady progress is being made by the Ukrainian armed forces, which continue to grind their way through the main Russian defensive position. Defence Intelligence estimates that the number of Russian permanent casualties —in other words, those who are dead or so seriously wounded that they cannot return to action—now stands at between 150,000 and 190,000 troops. Total casualties are estimated to number up to 290,000.
A limited Russian offensive is under way at Avdiivka on the outskirts of Donetsk city. Fighting has been fierce, and we assess that the average casualty rate for the Russian army was around 800 per day in the first week of the offensive. As ever, Putin and his generals show no more regard for the lives of their own troops than they do for the people of Ukraine.
However, even this ex-soldier can admit that wars are not only about the fight on the land. Since the last debate on Ukraine, the Ukrainians have opened up a new front in the Black sea, destroying a Kilo-class submarine and two amphibious ships, as well as making a successful strike on the Russian Black sea fleet headquarters. The consequence, as President Zelensky has rightly said, is that the Russian Black sea fleet is no longer capable of resistance in the western Black sea. As we move beyond day 600—it is day 608, to be precise—of Putin’s “three-day” illegal war, he has still not achieved any of his initial strategic aims, and he has now ceded sea control in the western Black sea to a nation without a navy.
The UK continues to donate significant amounts of ammunition and matériel, paid for from the £2.3 billion commitment for this financial year. That follows the same amount being given the year before, and that is an important point. Our gifting is about more than headline-making capabilities such as Challenger 2 or Storm Shadow. It is the delivery, month after month, of tens of thousands of artillery rounds, air defence missiles and other small but necessary items of equipment that positions the UK as one of the biggest and most influential of Ukraine’s donors. The UK is also the only country to have trained soldiers, sailors, aviators and Marines in support of the Ukrainian effort; we have now trained over 50,000 soldiers, sailors, aviators and Marines since 2014.
Events in the middle east have dominated the headlines, but in the Ministry of Defence and across the UK Government—and, clearly, in His Majesty’s Opposition, as they brought forward this urgent question—Ukraine remains a focus. I think that seeing this very timely question will matter enormously to our friends and colleagues in Kyiv. I remain every bit as confident today as I have been on all my previous visits to the Dispatch Box over the last two years that Ukraine can and will prevail.
John Healey
Members from across the House, and people across the world, are rightly focused on the middle east after Hamas’s horrific attacks. That terrorism must be condemned, civilians must be protected, humanitarian corridors must be opened, international law must be followed, and escalation risks must be managed. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s Gulf visit later this week, and I hope that he will report back to us in the House. I also welcome President Biden’s oval office address, in which he said:
“Hamas and Putin represent different threats, but they share this in common: they both want to completely annihilate a neighbouring democracy”.
Today lets President Putin know that the UK remains focused on, and united in, solidarity with Ukraine.
Last week, as the Minister said, we passed the grim 600-day milestone since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. War still rages, cities are still bombed, and civilians are still raped and killed. Ukraine has made important gains in recent days on the Dnipro river. Will the Minister update the House on that? I am proud of the UK leadership on Ukraine, but we must work to maintain that leadership and accelerate support. I fear that UK momentum is flagging. There has been no statement on Ukraine to Parliament from the new Defence Secretary since his appointment in August, and no statement from any Defence Secretary in this House since May.
Labour backs the recent announcements on UK military aid, the new British Army training to protect critical infrastructure, and the £100 million, raised with allies, that will come from the International Fund for Ukraine, but Ukrainians are asking for winter support, air defence, and more ammunition—and where is the UK’s planned response? No new money for military aid for Ukraine has been committed by this Prime Minister. The £2.3 billion for this year was pledged by his predecessor, and the £2.3 billion for last year was pledged by her predecessor. This year’s money runs out in March. Seven months after announcing £2 billion for UK stockpiles in the spring Budget, not a penny has been spent and not a single contract signed. Why? Putin must be defeated, just as Hamas must be defeated. We must not step back. We must stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to win.
James Heappey
I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s words about the despicable attack from Hamas and the absolute right of Israel to defend itself. As I said, I believe strongly that it is important that Putin does not see this as a moment of opportunity to sow more chaos, and does not think that the western donor community is distracted or has a preference for supporting Israel over Ukraine. He must know that our resolve is to support both.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly noted that the Secretary of State will be in the Gulf later this week. I am sure that he will want to talk about what he hears there, but I suspect that he will also want to keep some of that counsel private, as we seek to calibrate how we posture ourselves in the region in order to reassure our allies and deter those who might seek to make a bad situation even worse. The Secretary of State was in Washington last week, and has had a number of calls with other partners around the region. So too have the Chief of the Defence Staff and I, as part of a Ministry of Defence-wide effort to ensure that we constantly calibrate our response alongside that of those who we traditionally work with in the region, and we make sure that nothing we do is misinterpreted.
The right hon. Gentleman and I are, I think, friends, so there is some dismay that he dismisses all my efforts at the Dispatch Box to keep the House updated on the war in Ukraine. I stood here as recently as 11 September to lead an excellent debate on the subject, and have given a number of statements on behalf of the Secretary of State. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman is so rank-conscious as to deem my efforts unworthy, but I have done my best.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that the excellent financial contribution made over the two previous financial years is, as yet, unconfirmed for the next financial year. It will not surprise him to know that that has already been the subject of conversation across Government. It is not for me to make that announcement in an urgent question today, but a major fiscal event is forthcoming, and I know that he will not have to wait too long. That does not mean that our plans are uncertain. In fact, I push back strongly on the suggestion that they are. For a long time over the past two years, there has been a sort of misunderstanding that the UK’s capacity to gift is entirely either from our own stockpiles or from our indigenous industrial capacity. The vast majority of what the UK gifts is what we are able to buy internationally, often from countries that Putin would prefer were not providing us with that stuff. However, we have been able to get our hands on it and get it to the Ukrainians with some haste. That is exactly the sort of thing that the right hon. Gentleman asked about.
It is about the small but necessary things, such as winterisation equipment, small arms ammunition, artillery ammunition and air defence ammunition, and our ability to buy that while in parallel stimulating UK industry. I reject what the right hon. Gentleman said about contracts having not been placed; substantial contracts have been placed directly to replenish UK stockpiles of NLAWs, Starstreak, lightweight multi-role missiles, Javelin, Brimstone, 155 mm shells and 5.56 mm rifle rounds. As far as I can see, there is a steady state contribution to the Ukrainians that amounts to tens of thousands of rounds per month, plus air defence missiles, plus all the small stuff, alongside the replenishment of our own stockpiles, which can only happen at the pace at which industry can generate it, but none the less it is happening.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the situation in the Black sea with sea mines and how they are breaking loose. Our allies in Turkey are doing an incredible job in maintaining the Montreux convention and trying to keep those sea lanes safe. Is he having any conversations with our Turkish allies about any support they may need in no matter what way to try to ensure that those sea lanes are safe—if we can get the grain deal up and running again and get grain out through maritime? We are aware that sea mines are breaking free.
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend is an expert on these matters, and I commend him for the work that he and colleagues across the House do as part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly to ensure that Parliaments across NATO stand united in our support for Ukraine. He rightly notes the importance of the Montreux convention in keeping non-home ported ships out of the Black sea, and the Turks have applied that scrupulously. Turkey is entirely confident and comfortable in its ability to continue to enforce the convention. Clearly, for other Black sea nations, such as Romania and Bulgaria, de-mining is already a concern and they are getting on with that. I met my Romanian counterpart at the Warsaw security forum only two weeks ago to discuss exactly that.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
We cannot forget this autumn that we are seeing a broader escalation of the conflict in Ukraine into the frontiers of our Euro-Atlantic homeland. I speak in particular about the recent announcements by the Governments of Sweden, Finland and Estonia that undersea assets linking those countries have been intentionally damaged by third parties. I should declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Estonia.
My primary concern, which I am sure the Minister shares, is closer to home. Events in the eastern Mediterranean and the Baltics demonstrate the diffuse nature of the threats we need to face, but they also demonstrate the importance of keeping a singular focus on the areas that the Government can best hope to influence. While supporting the heroic and excellent bilateral support for the people of Ukraine as they continue their fight, on the day that the Defence Committee publishes a report into the Government’s Indo-Pacific tilt, can I ask the Minister to reiterate his Government’s commitment to Euro-Atlantic security as a central strategic concern of these islands of the north Atlantic that we inhabit together, and critically, to update the House on the security of our North sea oil and gas infrastructure?
James Heappey
It is fantastic to hear the SNP’s epiphany on the strategic importance of North sea oil and gas. We take seriously the requirement to protect our subsea infrastructure, whether oil and gas, fibre-optic cables or energy interconnectors. The Royal Navy has ships permanently at high readiness to ensure that our national economic zone is secure.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point. Is a time of growing instability in the Euro-Atlantic and the near east one also to be committing more military resource to the far east and the Indo-Pacific? Every defence review—the original integrated review and its refresh—has been clear that the absolute foundation of all our military effort is around security in the Euro-Atlantic, but if our principal ally in the United States is ever-more concerned, as it is, about its competition with China and the challenge in the Indo-Pacific, it is surely necessary to show our willingness to contribute to Indo-Pacific security alongside the United States, so that the United States remains engaged in Euro-Atlantic security, too.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Before I ask my question, may I quote the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace)? In an important article in The Daily Telegraph at the beginning of October, he said:
“Before I left office, I asked the PM to match or increase the £2.3 billion for Ukraine to add to the £4.6 billion we have spent already. The UK is no longer the biggest European donor to Ukraine—Germany is.”
Does the Minister agree that this is a helpful exchange of views, because it will enable him and his team to go to the Treasury and express how united the House is on the need to continue this important—indeed, decisive—level of contribution to Ukraine’s fight for freedom?
James Heappey
The previous Defence Secretary never needed any help from me in making his case to Prime Ministers. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK has won a position in leading the global donor community, because we have resourced that commitment and have been willing to go through capability thresholds before anybody else, but our position as a leader internationally depends on our continued willingness to be so. The previous Secretary of State, the current Secretary of State and indeed the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are all on the same page about the importance of maintaining that UK position.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I completely agree with the comments made and concerns raised by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). Part of the reason we want the Secretary of State in the Chamber is that we really need to up the game, in convincing the British people why it is essential that we continue our massive ongoing support for Ukraine, and of the importance of defeating Russia. It is clear that Ukraine needs more resources—equipment, ammunition, armaments and so on—so we need to step up further. Will the Minister go back to the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues and say that we really do need to put more resources into supporting Ukraine?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we should not take for granted the cross-party and national consensus that has existed on support for Ukraine. All of us in the House continue to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian armed forces, and I think we set the tone that the media and the nation follow, but it involves a significant amount of money at a time when everybody else around the Cabinet table will also be seeking resource for their Departments, so we must make that case, as he said. As far as I can tell, though, the case is a completely compelling one.
What the Ukrainians are doing is standing up to our main adversary—the nation that challenges security in the Euro-Atlantic most profoundly—and it is through our support for them that we are making a clear stand about how we want the Euro-Atlantic to be and, in so doing, reassuring all our NATO allies along NATO’s eastern frontier of our resolve to stand up to Russian aggression with them, under the terms of NATO’s treaties.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s clarity about how critical it is for the security of the world and the rules-based international order that there is a successful outcome for Ukraine in this conflict. Will he do everything he can to ensure that the critical longer-range missiles and air defence systems, which are having a very detrimental effect on the Russian armed forces, continue to get through? May I add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)? We take it as read that extra money will be announced in the autumn statement—at least as much as before, if not more—to help sustain Ukraine in this dreadful conflict.
James Heappey
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the need to maintain our support for the Ukrainian armed forces. A number of step-change capabilities will come into Ukrainian hands over the next 12 months or so—most obviously combat air. While the UK is not an F-16 nation, it is part of the F-16 coalition and does basic pilot training before the aircraft go on to F-16 nations for conversion. I know that the Prime Minister agrees with all in the House who make the case for the need for us to continue to support Ukraine into the next financial year.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
In recent days, there has quite rightly been a lot of interest about the law of armed conflict: a subject about which the Minister knows from his own time serving in the armed forces. While the conflict in Israel and Gaza has rightly made us reflect on the protection of innocent civilians, in the last couple of years we have seen a war in Ukraine in which Russia has shown little regard for civilians. What does the Minister understand by the term “proportionality” in the context of the war in Ukraine?
James Heappey
I think that some of the false equivalence that Lavrov and others from the Russian Government have sought to create is deeply misguided. The point of proportionality is not an eye for an eye or a numerical thing; it is about military necessity to achieve legitimate and proportionate military aims. It is clear in the way that Putin has prosecuted his war, most obviously in places such as Mariupol as well as in how he has systematically targeted civilian infrastructure, not as part of the initial shaping of a legitimate military operation but as part of a deliberate sustained campaign to terrorise the Ukrainian people, that there is no equivalence between what is happening in Gaza at the moment and what has been happening in Ukraine. We must stand up every time that Lavrov or his cronies try to make the opposing point, and be clear on the difference in international humanitarian law.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
It cannot be extraordinary that on the same day the Russians assaulted Avdiivka, Iranian-backed Hamas decided to commit their murderous assault on Israel. We cannot fight Hamas, but we can do so much more to crush their Russian allies.
James Heappey
It is important that I do not suggest that we have any evidence that somehow the Kremlin and Hamas were co-ordinating in the awful events that happened two Saturdays ago. What we have seen is that the Kremlin is incredibly effective at spotting opportunities presented to it that would further subvert and destabilise. We have seen that in coups across western Africa and in how Putin quickly moved to contribute to a challenging narrative to the west over what happened in Israel two Saturdays ago.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I know it is difficult to get exact numbers, but the calculations so far of wounded Ukrainian troops are anything between 100,000 and 120,000, as well as about 18,000 civilians. What support is being provided to Ukraine’s health services to help them cope with the wounded and injured? What support is being given with regard to specialist service link-ups between the UK and Ukraine, also to provide the best support that we can?
James Heappey
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are significant casualties on the Ukrainian side, though it is important to note that they are less than those suffered on the Russian side. Those are both military and civilian. On the military side, there is a coalition of nations, just as there is with all other types of capability to provide military aid. There are UK medics based in Lviv as part of that. When I was Rzeszów in Poland just two weeks ago, my plane pulled up alongside a Swedish air force plane that was about to evacuate Ukrainian troops back to Sweden. In addition, the UK is rehabilitating some troops injured on the Ukrainian side to our rehabilitation facilities here. In addition to that, as part of the wider support that the UK Government provide to Ukraine, we are of course always looking for opportunities to support the wider humanitarian and civilian medical services, too.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
May I return to stockpiles and supply chains? The Minister is right that the UK has provided a great deal of matériel, but we need a steady supply of orders to restock our own cupboards and to supply the Ukrainians. Will he outline what he is doing to make sure that we have supply chain resilience? Could he reassure me that he will keep a laser-like focus on the logistics capacity needed to get kit from here to there?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is right on both counts. First, the industrial capacity needs to be re-established not just to replenish our supply chain, which is an important point. The Department is not seeking simply to make a single order to replace whatever has been gifted to the Ukrainians. Instead, we are looking to create orders that run on and on so that the industrial capacity can be maintained. Those contracts are being placed as the industrial capacity comes online. In the meantime, other contracts are being placed that allow more like-for-like replacement from stockpiles elsewhere in the world. He is right that having all the industrial capacity and the fighting echelon works only if we have the logistic enablers to match it all up. We are making investment in that, as was set out in the defence Command Paper refresh.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
We must not forget Ukraine and we must continue to stand with Ukraine, but the war efforts there rely on a strong supply chain here in the UK. A crucial part of that supply chain are the GMB members at Defence Equipment and Support, who assemble and transport missiles to the frontline, but they have had to take weeks of industrial action over unfair pay. Ukrainian politicians and trade unions have urged a resolution to the dispute, because they know how valuable those workers are. Will the Minister join me in doing the same?
James Heappey
I am unfamiliar with the issue of which the hon. Lady speaks and I would not want to comment on the fly. Clearly, those who work within our excellent defence industry do very important work. In my experience, many of them see themselves as contributing to a national endeavour and are motivated by patriotism every bit as much as by money. I hope that they will continue to work as hard as they have so that we can support our own armed forces as well as those of Ukraine.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Given that precision, remotely piloted and autonomous weapon systems, not to mention close air support, could be decisive to an attritional land campaign, will the Minister please update the House on the delivery of air power to Ukraine?
James Heappey
In response to an earlier question, I mentioned the F-16 coalition, which is a combination of both gifting the jets and munitions and pilot training. I have nothing to add beyond what I said earlier, other than that it is expected that those capabilities will arrive with the Ukrainians within the next 12 months. Clearly, everyone is working as quickly as possible.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
If the news is to be believed this morning, we are about to see another German U-turn—this time on providing Taurus missiles—just as we saw a U-turn on Leopards and the F-16s. Indeed, right across the Ukraine contact group, we keep seeing the same pattern of countries dragging their heels on a certain capability, only to finally give in. Admittedly, that does not include the Minister and the Government, but why does it keep happening in the contact group? Will he say a bit more about how the training of F-16 pilots is going?
James Heappey
I am minded to be much more charitable to nations who have again and again challenged themselves to go through a capability threshold—often one that the UK has demonstrably gone through first. If we consider the position that the Germans have traditionally taken and where they are now post-Zeitenwende, the level of gifting that they are providing is extraordinary. It would be invidious of me to be in any way critical; in fact, I will go the other way and say how full of admiration I am for the way that German policy has shifted so completely over the last two years.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
They say that infantry wins battles but logistics wins wars. With western stockpiles diminished, what conversations has the Minister had with the defence sector about supporting Ukraine to produce its own munitions?
James Heappey
As keener followers of defence affairs will have spotted, the chief executive of BAE Systems was in Kyiv at the back end of the summer. BAE has already announced its intention to manufacture in Ukraine. Clearly, the British Government support that. We will look at how the wider UK industry can not only support the UK MOD’s support for Ukraine but increasingly manufacture directly in support of the Ukrainians.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Due to Putin’s illegal invasion of a sovereign neighbouring nation, Ukraine is now the most heavily mined country on earth, leading to countless deaths of innocent civilians. As the Ukrainians continue making progress with their counter-offensive, what steps is the Defence Minister taking to significantly expand our support in providing mine-clearing equipment to Ukraine?
James Heappey
With the exception of the northern Kharkiv oblast, which was recovered at some pace last autumn, I am not sure that the frontline has moved anywhere near enough to start to talk about a civilian de-mining effort in the defensive belts that have been laid over the last year or so. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman’s gesticulation seems to be suggesting that the progress made over the last four or five months is such that the 30 km defensive belt that was well-seeded with mines by the Russians is still very much within artillery range and a part of the defensive action by Ukraine. He is absolutely right, however, that the use of mines—even anti-armour mines, not just anti-personnel mines—is an appalling reality of modern warfare. There must be some urgency in clearing up the battlefield thereafter, but I gently suggest that the military facts do not lend themselves to any such effort right now.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
With the world rightly focusing on the middle east, I welcome this question as an opportunity to show our solidarity with Ukraine once again. I welcome Labour Front Benchers likening Hamas and Putin as barbaric bedfellows in trying to annihilate neighbouring democracies. At the recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly summit, we had a briefing from Colonel Maksym Suprun, commander of the 66th mechanised brigade of the Ukrainian armed forces. He talked about the urgent need for more anti-tank weaponry, unmanned aerial systems, electronic warfare capability and, of course, ammunition. How is the Minister making sure that we can deliver the munitions and military capabilities that the Ukrainian armed forces need on the frontline to so bravely defend their democracy?
James Heappey
For more than two years, the UK MOD, alongside the US Department of Defence, has had an incredibly strong relationship with the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence. Those political and military relationships and the connections between our defence procurement agencies allow us to have a close understanding of the Ukrainian requirement for the fight not just right now but in six months’ time. We will continue to maintain those relationships. We will continue to invest in the resources that are needed. Quite obviously, we are guided by what the Ukrainians need to stay in the fight tonight and tomorrow and, eventually, to prevail. Everything that we set out to procure on their behalf is with those plans in mind.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
We all stand with Ukraine, but there is considerable concern about the likely length of the war. Earlier this month, I attended the Pentlands Ukrainian support group for the Ukrainian refugees in Edinburgh South West, which is supported by the Currie Balerno rotary club in my constituency. Many of the women there asked me what will become of them if the war continues and their three-year visas are up. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Home Office about the need to extend humanitarian visas to Ukrainians or to look at giving them indefinite leave to remain?
James Heappey
Those are not conversations I have had, but since the hon. and learned Lady mentions them I will undertake to have them. First, I commend her local rotary club for leading the support of the Ukrainian community in her constituency. It is really uncomfortable that, while all I want to say to her constituents and the Ukrainians living in my constituency is, “Don’t worry, this will be over soon; you’ll be home soon,” the reality is that it will probably take a while longer yet. It is important that when we stand up in this House, we show Putin our resolve to support the Ukrainians for as long as it takes, with whatever it takes, even if that takes years, because Putin must not think the west will lose patience.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Depriving Russia of the revenue from oil sales is a central platform of the west’s response to its invasion of Ukraine. Twelve months ago, significant efforts were made which had a significant effect. However, at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly a few weeks ago, we heard evidence that all the blockades have now been circumvented and that Russia’s oil revenue has increased. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to work with international allies to see what else can be done in this dynamic environment?
James Heappey
Clearly, it is a cause of enormous concern when international sanctions regimes are not working as intended. If I may, I will follow up with my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Parliamentary Assembly to understand exactly what it was that they heard. I will then speak to colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about it, and perhaps write to him and his Parliamentary Assembly colleagues with a Government response.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
At the end of last month, the Defence Secretary suggested that the UK training of Ukrainian troops could be moved in-country into Ukraine. He also suggested that there might be a possibility of UK warships on the Black sea. Can the Minister say whether those plans still stand?
James Heappey
I heard a slightly different statement, and one that I think is self-evidently true. In a post-war Ukraine, the UK will absolutely seek to demonstrably support Ukrainian security on land, at sea and in the air, but obviously that is not something that we would do while a conflict is still live, for very obvious reasons.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to Ukraine and I am proud that Stevenage-based MBDA supplies Storm Shadow and Brimstone missiles, but we know from a recent report by the Royal United Services Institute’s open-source intelligence and analysis team that North Korea is now massively supplying Russia. Are there any plans to work with international partners to try to disrupt that supply or increase our supplies?
James Heappey
There are a number of outcomes that one might say reflect strategic defeat for Putin: Finland and Sweden joining NATO; growing distrust of Russia throughout its near abroad; and more recently its having to go to countries such as North Korea cap in hand to seek weapons because it is unable to sustain its own arms industry. That is not to mention the rapidly changing dynamic between Russia and China. Of course, the UK and our allies look at ways of disrupting Russian supply chains, but that would not necessarily be a matter we would discuss any further in public.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister will have heard concern raised in a number of places about the potential for a loss of focus or a lack of resolve, given the pivot of interest and attention to the middle east and the harrowing scenes over the last fortnight. He has robustly responded to those concerns. A second element of concern—he invoked the spectre of our main ally, the United States—is the political turmoil and turbulence that appears to be going on in the US Congress and the dissolution of the resolve that was rightly there for Ukraine in certain political circles. I am not asking the Minister to solve that as a problem, but is he concerned by it and can he assure the House that, from the engagement he has had with his counterparts in the United States, in the Executive tier their resolve is undiminished and they will find the resource to continue their support for Ukraine?
James Heappey
The Secretary of State was in Washington last week. Indeed, his meeting was the third he has had with Secretary Austin since he was appointed. Within the Executive, there is absolutely no change in approach whatsoever. Furthermore, although what we see in the news might suggest that there is a growing impatience or a lack of resolve in Congress, that is definitely not what we are hearing in our engagements with colleagues in Congress. America has a very strong sense of what its role in the world is and what this moment of challenge is. Despite whatever domestic politics may or may not be playing out, the resolve of Congress to stand firm on the side of freedom is as strong as it has always been.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Earlier, the Minister highlighted developments in the Black sea. Clearly, they are so important for grain and feeding the world. Will he update the House on the Government’s position on the Black sea grain initiative and how we can ensure that grain is getting out to feed the world?
James Heappey
The Government continue to be affronted by the idea that grain to feed the world should be traded as part of some deal. The Turks have shown admirable leadership in seeking to facilitate the movement of grain out of the Black sea and the UK continues to support those initiatives. If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend with a more fulsome response on the Black sea grain initiative specifically.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I recently met Ukrainian refugees in my constituency and they are really worried about the war lasting a lot longer than was originally anticipated. What they really want is the security to know that they can remain safe here in the UK for as long as this appalling war continues, past 31 December 2024. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Home Office about ensuring that Ukrainian refugees can continue to remain here in safety for as long as they need to?
James Heappey
The hon. Lady might have been momentarily distracted, but that exact same question came up 10 minutes or so ago. I will add her name to that of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) in my conversations with Home Office Ministers.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Providing matériel support and logistical cover is crucial to pushing back the Russian aggression in Ukraine, but so is a strong sanctions regime. Earlier today, a worrying report surfaced stating that while the UK has banned Russian copper, aluminium and nickel, the EU has not done the same, as it deems them to be critical minerals. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what the Government are doing to ensure that we present a united front in our battle against Russia?
James Heappey
When it comes to EU sanctions on Russian critical minerals, my hon. Friend has exposed a significant flaw in my knowledge. I will need to write to him.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I would like to thank the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), for calling this urgent question and the Minister for his update. The Minister spoke about the new and particularly important phase of the war regarding the Black sea and Crimea. Ukraine will not be free until every Russian soldier has left Crimea. The Ministry of Defence has trained Sea King pilots and, I understand, delivered three Sea Kings, but they are for search and rescue. What naval aid is the UK supplying to Ukraine for this next vital phase of the war?
James Heappey
The UK has provided a number of capabilities that have been used by the Ukrainians in their effort in the Black sea. None of those is explicitly naval, but the challenge with the Montreux convention is that, for example, the two minesweepers the Royal Navy has transferred to the nascent Ukrainian navy cannot enter the Black sea while the convention is in place. That, of course, constrains our ability to generate a genuine naval capability until the convention is lifted.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
When Putin launched his attack on Ukraine, he not only expected to conquer a neighbouring democracy but to split the international community. Instead, he united it because people cannot remain neutral when they see that type of behaviour. The biggest rebuff to him would be a strengthened and enlarged NATO, so what conversations is the Minister having, in particular with his Turkish and Hungarian counterparts, on ensuring that the ratification of Sweden’s membership proceeds forthwith?
James Heappey
It remains our firm expectation that Sweden will accede to NATO, and we continue to press all allies to ensure that that happens sooner rather than later. It is also of note—there has been a great deal of discussion about this in the Swedish media—that it is increasingly in Putin’s interests to style out some of the activities that have been happening in Sweden precisely to affront the sensibilities of some other NATO allies. It is important for all our eyes to be open to that possibility.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes proceedings on the urgent question. I will now pause for a moment to allow a change of dramatis personae before the statement.
Illegal Migration
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on illegal migration.
The Government have made it our top priority to stop the boats, because these crossings are not only illegal, dangerous and unnecessary, but deeply unfair. They are unfair on those who are genuinely in need of resettlement, as our finite capacity is taken up by people—overwhelmingly young men—coming to the UK directly from a place of safety in France, but most of all they are unfair on the law-abiding British public who face the real-world consequences of illegal migration through housing waiting lists, strained public services and, at times, serious community cohesion challenges, and it is the interests of the British public that we have a duty to advance.
We have developed what is among the most comprehensive and robust plans to tackle illegal migration in Europe, and over the last year the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I have focused on delivering it. The plan starts with taking the fight to the people-smuggling gangs upstream, long before they are even in striking distance of the United Kingdom. We have already doubled the funds for the organised immigration crime work of the National Crime Agency, and at a meeting of the European Political Community earlier this month the Prime Minister announced new, tailored initiatives with Belgium, Bulgaria and Serbia, which come in addition to the enhanced strategic partnerships that we have already agreed this year with Italy and Turkey. Our two agreements with the French Government have elevated our co-operation to unprecedented levels. This is degrading the organised immigration crime groups, and in the last few weeks new physical barriers have been installed to make it considerably harder for the flimsy dinghies to be launched.
As we are increasing disruption abroad, so we are restoring deterrence at home. We are breaking the link between arriving here illegally and a life in the UK. The number of removals of those with no right to be in the UK has increased by more than 75% in comparison with last year’s figure. Since we struck our enhanced returns agreement with Albania in December, we have returned more than 4,100 Albanian immigration offenders, and, as I saw for myself in Tirana last month, some of those individuals are being returned home in as little as 48 hours.
In August we announced the biggest shake-up in a decade of the penalties imposed on rogue employers and landlords who encourage illegal migration by hiring or renting to illegal migrants, and as we proceed with that, more unscrupulous businesses are getting the knock on the door. We have increased the number of enforcement raids by more than two thirds since this point last year. The surge has led to a doubling in the number of fines imposed on employers, and has tripled the number issued to landlords. However, for those who are complicit in the business model of the people smugglers, severe financial penalties are not enough, which is why we have dramatically increased the number of company directors who have been disqualified for allowing illegal working.
Our concerted efforts at home and abroad are making progress. For the first time since the phenomenon of small boat arrivals began four years ago, they are down by more than a fifth in comparison with those in the equivalent period in 2022, and in recent months we have seen still further falls—and let me dispel the myth peddled by some of our increasingly desperate opponents that that is because of the weather. The weather conditions this year were more favourable to small boat crossings than those in 2022, but we have still seen a marked decrease. By contrast, in the year to June 2023 detections of irregular border crossings at the external borders of Europe increased by a third, and irregular arrivals in Italy from across the Mediterranean have almost doubled. However, we must and will go further to stop the boats altogether. We remain confident of the legality of our Rwanda partnership and its ability to break the business model of the people smuggling gangs once and for all, and we look forward to the judgment of the Supreme Court. As the success of our Albania returns agreement has shown, with swift removals driving a 90% reduction in the number of illegal migrants seeking to enter the UK, deterrence works.
The real-world impacts of illegal migration on our communities have been raised many times in the Chamber. One of the most damaging manifestations of this problem has been the use of hotels to meet our statutory obligation to house those who arrive illegally and would otherwise be destitute. Ever since the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I assumed office a year ago, we have made it clear that that is completely unacceptable and must end as soon as practicable. Those hotels should be assets for their local communities, serving businesses and tourists and hosting the life events that we treasure, such as weddings and birthdays, rather than housing illegal migrants at an unsustainable cost to the taxpayer.
We therefore took immediate action a year ago to reduce our reliance on hotels. We significantly increased the amount of dispersed accommodation, and we have increased funding for local councils. We reformed the management of the existing estate: by optimising double rooms and increasing the number of people sharing rooms we have created thousands of additional beds, and in doing so have avoided the need for a further 72 hotels. We have mobilised the large disused military sites that are more appropriate, and have worked closely with local authorities to ensure that they have less impact on communities. We are in the process of a re-embarkation on the barge in Portland, and, as of 23 October, occupancy had reached approximately 50 individuals. That will continue as planned, in a phased manner, in the days and weeks ahead.
Nearly a year on, as a result of the progress we have made to stop the boats, I can inform the House that today the Home Office wrote to local authorities and Members of Parliament to inform them that we will now be exiting the first asylum hotels—hotels in all four nations of the United Kingdom. The first 50 exits will begin in the coming days and will be complete by the end of January, with more tranches to follow shortly. But we will not stop there: we will continue to deliver on our strategy to stop the boats, and we will be able to exit more hotels. As we exit those hotels, we are putting in place dedicated resources to facilitate the orderly and effective management of the process and limit the impact on local communities.
We made a clear commitment to the British public to stop the boats, not because it would be easy but because it was, and remains, the right thing to do. We are making solid progress, and our commitment to this task is as strong as ever. We will continue to act in the interests of the law-abiding majority, who expect and deserve secure borders, and I commend this statement to the House.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
At the time of the last election, the asylum backlog had already spiralled under Conservative mismanagement, but the number of small boats crossing the channel was close to zero, as was the number of emergency hotels being used. If we fast-forward four years, we see before us a picture of Tory boats chaos. For the third year running, more than 25,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats, while the number of hotels being used is about 400, at an eye-watering cost to the taxpayer of £8 million a day—higher than the cost last year. And what is the Government’s response? A Rwanda plan, but they have sent more Home Secretaries than asylum seekers to Rwanda; an Illegal Migration Act that is counterproductive and has not even been brought into full force yet; and a new barge that was meant to bring down hotel costs, but has only added to them. Also, the military bases promised by the Prime Minister last December are still not ready. All of this has left the Prime Minister with an asylum strategy this summer that was less akin to the Australian asylum model that he is so desperate to replicate and more in tune with the Australian cricket team during this summer’s Ashes: cross your fingers and pray for rain. Surely the Prime Minister knows that this was the wettest summer since 1912, and surely he recognises the impact that this had on small boat crossings.
The Government also like to claim to be bringing the backlog down, but it stands at 176,000. They like to talk about a legacy backlog, but this is just nonsense. It is a figment of the Prime Minister’s imagination. He is taking last year’s workload but ignoring this year’s workload. The backlog is the backlog is the backlog. You can slice the cake however you want and spin it however you want, but the cake is still the same size: 176,000 in the last quarterly figures—up, not down. As for those who are being processed and rejected—slowly, it must be said, at half the productivity of seven years ago—are they actually being returned? Removals are down 70% since Labour left office, with a 40,000 removals backlog.
On the issue of hotel use, today’s announcement illustrates better than any other the utter lack of ambition the Prime Minister has for our country. It beggars belief that the Minister has the brass neck to come here today to announce not that the Government have cut the number of hotels being used but that they simply plan to do so, and by a paltry 12%. Is that really it? Is it really their ambition that there will still be 350 asylum hotels in use at the end of the winter, despite promises last year that they would end hotel use this year?
Further questions for the Minister. Is it really true that the hotels he is considering closing will be in marginal constituencies? Does he really think that the public might not see through that ruse? Will he publish a list of the hotels he plans to close over the next six months? And why does the Minister not come back to update this Chamber when he has actually achieved something—not when he plans to achieve something or done a small part of what has been promised, but when the Prime Minister has actually achieved what he said he was going to achieve? At the moment, he sounds like an arsonist who has burned our house down and is expecting us to thank him for throwing a bucket of water on it.
Better still, why will this Government not get out of the way so that we on these Benches can show the leadership shown by our leader and our shadow Home Secretary on their trip to Europol recently, where they set out Labour’s plans to stop the Tory boats chaos by smashing the gangs, clearing the asylum backlog by surging the number of caseworkers, ending hotel use and fixing the asylum system, which successive Conservative Prime Ministers have utterly broken after 13 years of neglect and incompetence?
Robert Jenrick
So it is all down to the weather again. Every time I come to this Chamber, it is about the weather. The hon. Gentleman is becoming the Michael Fish of British politics: he always gets the forecasts wrong. The truth is that he cannot bear to admit that our plan is actually starting to work. Returns are up, raids are up, productivity is up 10 times and, above all, small boat arrivals are down. We are closing hotels; he wants to open our borders. The Government will never elevate the interests of illegal migrants over those of the hard-working taxpayers of this country. That is what we hold in our minds every day in this job, and that is the difference between the Labour party and this Government.
We used to think that the Labour party had no plan, but now we know that it does not even want to stop the boats. In the summer, the Leader of the Opposition said that, even if the Rwanda plan was working, he would still scrap it. How telling was that? Even if we were securing our borders, he would scrap it and wave people into our country. He also said on his fabled trip to Europe that he would strike a new deal with the EU, which would bring thousands of people into the country. The new towns that he announced at the Labour party conference would be filled with illegal migrants. We will never do that. The Labour party’s strategy is to force the British public to grudgingly accept mass migration. We disagree. We believe that the British public believe in secure borders and that they want a robust and fair immigration and asylum system. Our plan is working. Don’t let Labour ruin it.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Any day when an Immigration Minister can come to this House and give us good news is a day for celebration. My right hon. Friend and his team are to be commended for the hard work that has gone into the successes he has outlined today, and I hope that Ashford will benefit from one of the forthcoming tranches of hotels being closed. Can he also say whether the extra resources that have clearly gone into clearing the long-term backlog are still available, so that we will be able to cope with the constant flow that one gets of asylum seekers and not see any future backlogs building up?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his good advice and wise counsel. He had to clear up the mess left by the last Labour Government, so he knows how challenging these situations can be. We have put in place more resource. We met our target of 2,500 additional caseworkers to manage the asylum system. When I stood at this Dispatch Box in my first week in this role, the Home Office was making around 400 decisions a week. We are now making 4,500 a week, and I commend the civil servants at the Home Office who have driven that extraordinary improvement in management, grip and productivity. But we on this side of the House do not believe that we can grant our way out of this challenge; we have to stop the boats in the first place. That is why true deterrence is so critical, and it is why our Rwanda partnership, which Labour has tried to frustrate at every opportunity, is so important to securing our borders.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister will know that Mears has recently signed a contract with a hotel in Glasgow South West, so perhaps he can update us on the status of that contract. He has mentioned the backlog. Not everyone in a hotel in asylum accommodation is illegal; some will be successful in being granted refugee status. Can he tell us what discussions he is having with local authorities—I am thinking of Glasgow City Council in particular—on supporting and providing financial support for those successful refugees who will have to leave their hotel or asylum accommodation following a decision? Will he meet me and my Glasgow colleagues to discuss this issue?
Can the Minister tell us the estimated total operational and associated costs of this new system that he is creating, including barges, military sites, detention facilities and removal centres, alongside the proposed Rwanda deportations? Finally, an investigation by “The News Agents” has found that people traffickers say they are having an easier time sending small boats across the channel because of Brexit, which removed biometric system sharing and pan-European co-operation. What steps is he taking to create a returns agreement with the European Union, binding closer alignment with the EU and system sharing?
Robert Jenrick
Far be it from me to cast doubt on the journalism of “The News Agents”, but I disagree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. In this role, I have come to the view that leaving the European Union was more important than ever because the migration crisis being faced by Europe today, which is likely to grow every year in the years and decades to come, will be very significant and challenging. The ability to control our own borders and make our own decisions is critical for the future of this country.
With respect to the situation in Glasgow, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman there. Glasgow has had a high preponderance of asylum seekers, as he will know, but that was the choice of the Scottish Government. To my eyes, they did not want to house asylum seekers in other parts of Scotland. That is now changing, but it does mean that there will be a particular challenge in his community and I would be happy to meet him to discuss that.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary for the real progress that is now evident. It may not be sufficient for many at the moment, but the real issue is, as I believe the French are now beginning to understand—I would like confirmation on that, if it is true—that the Human Rights Act, in our case, and the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention are not only a European problem but a global problem. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the French are going to make real changes on this? Is he in discussions with them? As I have said for many years now, unless we sort this out, the tangible benefits will not be as evident as they could be.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support over the last year, in particular with our landmark Illegal Migration Act 2023. He is right to say—this is a point I made in a speech at Policy Exchange earlier this year and the Home Secretary made in a speech in Washington more recently—that the international framework, whether it be the European convention on human rights or the refugee convention, although undoubtedly well intentioned at the time, is now in need of serious reform. Today we find ourselves in a world in which hundreds of millions of people are on the move and eligible for refugee status. The situation is incomparable to the one we experienced in the immediate aftermath of the second world war.
The signatories and authors of those documents would be appalled to see some of the abuses we see in our present system, which frustrates our ability to support those who are truly in need and fleeing war and persecution. Across Government, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I are raising this with all our partners and allies at every opportunity.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
At the Public Accounts Committee in July, Home Office officials told me that the Government were paying for 5,000 empty hotel beds as a buffer in case of an upsurge in people travelling across the channel. Could the Minister update the House on how many empty hotel beds the Government are currently paying for?
Robert Jenrick
I would hope the right hon. Lady welcomes today’s news that, as a result of the good progress we have made on reducing small boat crossings, we are now in a position to begin closing those hotels. It is true that the Home Office kept a proportion of hotels precisely to ensure that we did not find ourselves in the position we saw last autumn, when I took on this position and we had problems at the Manston facility in Kent. As a result of the significantly fewer numbers crossing the channel this year, those beds have not been necessary, which is one of the many contributory factors behind our ability to start closing the hotels.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Minister and the Home Secretary are to be commended for their crusade against devilish people smugglers, dodgy lawyers and deluded interest groups, but will he acknowledge that the bar needs to be raised for asylum applications? Far more applicants are granted asylum in this country than the European average. The standard of proof needs to be improved.
Does the Minister also accept that, while these improved numbers are to be welcomed, the asylum system needs fundamental change so that it is only for people in genuine fear of persecution, and so that economic migrants who just want a better life cannot come here using asylum as justification?
Robert Jenrick
I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. The Home Secretary and I are driven by two ambitions that must come together. One is efficiency in the system, and the other is rigour and integrity. We have to ensure that, as we process claims faster than ever before, we are rigorous in interrogating the evidence and weeding out those individuals who have absolutely no right to be here in the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that the UK is a place of refuge for those in genuine peril, but not a home for economic migrants. It has to be said that a very large proportion of the people coming to the UK are, in one form or another, economic migrants. At the very least they are asylum shoppers, because almost all of them come from a place of evident safety in France.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Minister has heard me say before that the use of hotels serves nobody. It does not serve the taxpayer, it does not serve local communities and it certainly does not serve those people seeking refuge in this country, so the fact the hotels are to be stopped is good news. Can he give me some indication of where the hotel in Knowsley fits into his timetable? Does he agree that people need to tone down their rhetoric and stop peddling false narratives about what is going on with refugees? Frankly, all that does is worsen community relations.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for the work that the right hon. Gentleman and I have done on this issue, particularly on the very serious events that took place at the hotel he mentions. I contacted his office earlier today to notify him that the hotel will be included in the first tranche of hotel closures. The incident he experienced highlights why this is not an appropriate form of accommodation, as it took from his community a very valued asset that people used for weddings, birthdays and special life events. It was also a source of serious community tension, which is why we now have to exit the hotels as swiftly as we can. It is also a lesson to us that we have to be very alive to the challenges both of high levels of illegal migration and of high levels of legal migration that make it difficult for us to successfully integrate people into our communities.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his robust and confident statement, and for the significant progress he has been able to report to the House today. Can he also confirm that the hotel on the A12 near Langham in my Harwich and North Essex constituency is one of those that will no longer be used for asylum seekers?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Home Office has a long-standing policy of not naming the hotels wherever possible, but I can say that a hotel in his constituency is part of the first tranche of closures. If he has not already been notified, he should be notified by the Home Office very soon.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats submitted a freedom of information request to the Home Office to ask about the cost of the Bibby Stockholm. We asked about the cost to taxpayers of buying the barge, as well as the estimated cost of running it over the next 12 months. The cost is estimated at £20 million a year, which is well over £300,000 a week. Why has the Home Office refused to put this information in the public domain? And why has it declared that to do so would not be in the public interest?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is essentially a humanitarian nimby. He comes to the House to say that we should be a welcoming nation and invite more people here, but he does not want to face up to the consequences of where those people should be housed. Behind his question is a view that I think is quite offensive to the British public, which is that it is okay to house British oil and gas workers on this barge, but not illegal migrants. I very much doubt his constituents would agree with him.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I assure Members that the sun often shines on our blessed corner of Kent. Indeed, we have had a heatwave on one or two occasions this year, so let us not have any more of this weather nonsense.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his update. We need to put on record the immense effort that he and everyone on the Government side have made to secure this 20% reduction. It is the first sustained reduction in small boat crossings, and that is welcome. It shows that it can be done, and that this Conservative Government are doing what they said they would do. Will he join me in thanking those in my constituency who work at Border Force and the small boats command centre and are working hard to secure our border and keep us safe, as well as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and coastguard, who do a very difficult job, day in, day out? I thank them for all their work.
Robert Jenrick
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all those who work at our facilities in Dover and on the south coast. This is very challenging and difficult work. At times, they have had to cope with immensely difficult experiences, and they have saved hundreds, indeed thousands, of lives in the process.
The point that should be reinforced to my hon. Friend’s constituents is that, although today marks significant progress—certainly very significant progress compared with what we see in other European countries—it is clearly not enough. Her constituents want us to stop the boats entirely, which is what we are setting out to do. Today is not a day for triumphalism. It is a milestone, and tomorrow we get back to work and get back to stopping the boats.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
It is important, as we develop policy, to try to identify issues that might come up further down the line. As the Minister knows, in my constituency, large numbers of asylum seekers are being processed—I congratulate him on that. Most are gaining status—understandably, because most of them have come from war zones—and they will be seeking employment. On identifying possible issues down the line, has the Minister seen the report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in The Independent, which is based on the Home Office’s findings on the treatment of migrant workers? It identified wage theft, forced unpaid overtime, racist abuse, illegal charging of fees for jobs, and insanitary living and working conditions. Will he review the mechanisms for the monitoring of and enforcement against abuse of migrant workers?
Robert Jenrick
That is of concern to me and the Home Secretary. We are aware of abuse in some of our communities, and we work closely with immigration enforcement and other agencies to try to bear down on it, because it is not right for individuals to be exploited in the way that the right hon. Gentleman describes. Also, there is a strong correlation between unscrupulous employers who act in that way and other serious failings, such as not paying tax, poor health and safety standards and poor product standards. That is why we need to weed out such behaviour.
Sir Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows from the Adjournment debate we had and our correspondence over the summer the extent to which illegal migration is an issue in my constituency. Some colleagues talk about “a” migrant hotel, but we have multiple such hotels. I welcome the Minister’s announcement today that one of those hotels will be taken back. Sir Humphrey used to say that
“Gratitude is merely a lively expectation of favours to come.”
In that spirit, may I ask my right hon. Friend when we can have the rest of our hotels back?
Robert Jenrick
As we make more progress on stopping the boats, so we will make more progress on closing the hotels. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his work. His constituents have experienced the reality of illegal migration, not just in hotels that should be used for tourist purposes being taken away from them, but through a serious murder in the community, which should give us all pause for thought and urge us to redouble our efforts to stop people coming to the UK in that manner.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Unlike many Conservative Members, I am glad that the United Kingdom remains a signatory to the European convention on human rights. That means that refugees and asylum seekers who come to the UK have exactly the same rights as each of us in this House. That includes the right not to be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment. Many of my constituents are concerned about the conditions in which refugees and asylum seekers have been kept in the past. They were worried about the Legionella on the barge, and they saw the conditions in Manston and Napier—the overcrowding, and the worst spread of diphtheria in decades. What can the Minister do to reassure my constituents that the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers will be respected while they are in his Government’s care?
Robert Jenrick
We take seriously our obligations to treat anyone in our care with dignity and compassion, and when we or our providers fall below that standard, it is right that we take action against those involved. The situation is challenging to manage; the hon. and learned Lady knows that from her city of Edinburgh, which houses comparatively few asylum seekers and has no migrant hotels, and whose council explicitly turned down the opportunity to house asylum seekers on the very vessel that it used for Ukrainian refugees. If she wants to support further asylum seekers coming to her community, she has to find accommodation for them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Enough. We have had that question, and we are now moving on to the next one.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
My constituents have welcomed Ukrainians into their homes and Hong Kong Chinese into their communities, and our excellent domestic abuse services mean that we often give women from all over the country a fresh place to restart their life. However, that means that there is huge pressure on local schools and housing, and the more than 400 asylum seekers who have arrived in Chelmsford since early summer risk bringing those services to breaking point. Although I welcome today’s announcements, I am concerned that Chelmsford is not on the list. Will the Minister, who is doing an excellent job, work closely with those in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to look at housing for those who are granted asylum, so that the need is shared fairly across the country and does not just create extra pressure on areas that are already hotspots?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising concerns about the particular hotel in her constituency—
Robert Jenrick
The two hotels; my right hon. Friend corrects me. I would obviously like them to be closed at the earliest opportunity, but today we are setting out the beginning of a phased closure, with the first 50 hotels being notified. I hope that more will follow in the weeks and months ahead. I am fully aware of the situation in Chelmsford that she described, and I would like it to be resolved.
I take my right hon. Friend’s broader point about the importance of the Home Office working closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), is sitting beside me. She and I and the Secretary of State are working closely together to ensure that local authorities can plan for any new individuals who might live in their area.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that response, the Minister talks about the planning between the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Home Office, but I wonder what experience he has of the London private rental market. In my constituency, refugees who have been granted asylum are being kicked out of their hotels by the Home Office contractor within a week.
Stella Creasy
The Minister shakes his head, but I am happy to share with him the letter that shows that. No assistance has been provided for those people. They are being told to go back to the council, but the council does not have time to follow up with them, so they end up at our local homeless night shelter, which will ultimately cost us all more than an orderly system. The Minister is shaking his head, but what does his data show about the number of refugees granted asylum while staying in migrant hotels who have been rehoused? Will he look at a more orderly system, and work with those of us on the ground to ensure that today’s announcement will not just be a way of passing on the cost to another Department?
Robert Jenrick
First the hon. Lady wanted us to clear the backlog; now she does not want us to do that because of the consequences of clearing it. Perhaps it would be better if she just supported us in trying to stop illegal migrants coming to the country in the first place. On her specific points, it is not correct that the Home Office gives seven days’ notice; it gives 28. [Interruption.] I am happy to look at what she is waving in my face, but I assure her that the policy is 28 days’ notice. The key point is that everybody who is granted asylum has access to the benefits system and can get a job. Given that the overwhelming majority are young men, that is exactly what they should do now: get on and contribute to British society, and integrate into our country.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I am pleased that the Minister has kept to his commitment that the North Stafford Hotel in Stoke-on-Trent will be one of the first to close. That is happening only because of the Government’s work to tackle illegal migration and stop the boats. Does my right hon. Friend agree that areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, which have done more than their fair share of contributing, should not continue to see more asylum seekers, and have more refugees settled? We need to ensure that there is a fair share across the country.
Robert Jenrick
I am delighted that the hotel to which my hon. Friend refers is in the first tranche. He and I visited it with his colleagues from Stoke, and it was clearly a classic case of why we should not use such hotels. It was a highly valued and prominent business and community hotel—a landmark in Stoke-on-Trent that is familiar to anyone who passes through the station. I am pleased to announce that it will return to its proper use very soon.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I think that the Minister recognises the acute pressures that local authorities could face when asylum seekers who are rapidly granted status move out of hotels, then risk becoming homeless. He said that he will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) to discuss the situation in Glasgow. Will he extend that invitation to the leader of the city council and other stakeholders, to ensure that Glasgow and other local authorities are properly supported and so can continue to extend a welcome to refugees?
Robert Jenrick
It will be an interesting conversation with the leader of Glasgow City Council, because as I recall the council does not want to take any more of our refugees. It put out a statement saying it would not use a barge, even though Glasgow had itself used a barge for Ukrainian refugees. I do not know why a Ukrainian is different from an Afghan or a Syrian; perhaps the hon. Gentleman should explain those double standards.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Having stood at that Dispatch Box myself discussing this sort of subject, I imagine my right hon. Friend is much happier to come to the House with today’s statement than with some of the things we sometimes end up having to discuss. I must have missed all those Opposition demands to remove more people and take a tougher stance.
I welcome the message regarding the Esplanade in Paignton and my right hon. Friend’s confirmation this morning. It is appreciated. Can he assure me that we will pursue measures such as Greek-style accommodation centres and ensure an adequate supply of dispersed accommodation, fairly distributed across the United Kingdom—including the 31 of 32 areas of Scotland that used to refuse it—so that we do not have to resort to hotels again in the future?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need a fair and equitable system. That is why he contributed to the creation of the national dispersal model, which we continue to pursue. We have now created the first large sites: we have stood up our site at Wethersfield in Essex and we are proceeding to stand up the site in Lincolnshire, as well as the barge in Portland. Why are we doing that? It is because we do not want the UK to be considered a soft touch. It is not right that someone who might have been sleeping in a camp in France comes across in a small boat and finds himself in a Holiday Inn in Oxford. That makes the UK a laughing stock. We had to change that, which is why we have put in place those larger sites. They are more appropriate, they save the taxpayer money, and they send a signal about the strength of the UK’s resolve to tackling this issue.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister is very selective with his dodgy statistics, but what I would like to know is whether he is still planning to site an accommodation barge on Teesside.
Robert Jenrick
We are always looking for further locations, but we do not currently have any agreement with ports in Teesside.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he has done to bring down the number of boat crossings and to speed up people being sent back. I also thank him personally for coming to Stoke-on-Trent to see the challenges we have. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) mentioned the hotel that is the gateway to our city and symbolic of what we aspire to: levelling up. I am grateful that it is to be one of the 50.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words and for the leadership she has shown in arguing on behalf of her constituents for that migrant hotel to close. Her argument was grounded in levelling up, to which she is very committed. I know from working with Stoke-on-Trent City Council on many different things in the recent past how important that gateway to the city is, and how much investment has been secured to improve it, so that leisure and business travellers arrive in that great city and see it at its best. Closing that hotel will, I hope, play a small part in turning that tide.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I want to push back against this dangerous “community cohesion” narrative that has been used by the Minister and others today and previously. The UK has taken fewer asylum seekers per head than most other European countries. Indeed, the UK has been shaped and reshaped by successive waves of immigration over the centuries. I speak as one who has two hotels in my constituency, so I am not a nimby on this. Most of the asylum seekers I have spoken to want to contribute to society, they want to work and they want to integrate. Does the Minister recognise the dangerous, slippery-slope implications of some of the rhetoric he is using?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is not correct in his presentation that the UK is less generous than other European countries. Statistics are hard to compare, because we are a destination country. Many of those who come here and claim asylum stay here, while in countries elsewhere in Europe people claim in multiple locations while they are transiting through them. The most important statistic is that since 2015, the UK has issued 530,000 humanitarian visas—more than at any time in our modern history. That is a very large number of people to absorb into our communities, to support properly and to integrate, and it is one of the reasons why local authorities are under great pressure at the moment. We have to be realistic about that. It is why we have said we will put a cap on safe and legal routes, and why soon we will consult local authorities, including the hon. Gentleman’s, to determine the true capacity, so that the statements we make in this House match the reality on the ground.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The strain on public services caused by illegal migration is often felt the most by smaller towns, so may I ask my right hon. Friend to make such areas the focus of his efforts to close migrant hotels in the future?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is undoubtedly true that communities with fewer hotels have fewer public services. It is harder for people to get around because public transport is weaker. It is therefore more impactful when the Home Office takes hotels in such places, and we should consider that as we proceed to exit hotels.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and his determination to deliver solutions. It is clear from what he says that solutions are coming. I welcome the news this morning of the intention to cut the costly hotel bills, but will the Minister clarify whether that is because we are sending unsuccessful applicants somewhere else, and if so, where they are going? It cannot be a case of cutting hotel bills while increasing council costs by the same amount. Will the Minister also confirm that local women and children will be prioritised in housing over any young, healthy, single illegal migrant male?
Robert Jenrick
I share my hon. Friend’s sentiment and conviction. Of course we should be a decent, generous and compassionate country to those coming here from places of peril, but we also have to prioritise the interests of British taxpayers. We should not be elevating the interests of illegal migrants over those of the communities we are sent here to serve. Those who are granted asylum have access to the benefits system and they can work. We should all encourage them to do so and to integrate into British society.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister for listening to my Stroud constituents’ concerns about illegal migration and speeding up processing, and for taking seriously my calls to close a migrant hotel in my patch. I caution Labour Front Benchers against playing political games over which hotels are closing, because not only do they have no plan themselves, but they do not know what many of our constituents have been through, because Members of Parliament, local police and local residents have worked hard to keep incidents out of the newspapers, so that they do not escalate. Will my right hon. Friend please clarify when we will receive more information about the closures, and confirm that, in the event of a closure in my patch, there will be close working with Gloucestershire County Council, which has been very solid on this?
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. Friend for her good work representing her constituents on this issue in her characteristically sensible and calm manner. I am pleased that we have come to a good outcome in her case. The Home Office will write today or in the coming days to all the local authorities and MPs with hotels in the first 50. In the weeks ahead, we will consider further tranches as we make further progress on stopping the boats. We will put in place the processes and personnel required to support local authorities as we decant individuals from those locations.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Skegness is a tourist economy, and hoteliers have told me that the use of hotels in Skegness for illegal migrants has led to bookings being cancelled; it has been associated with serious crime. We have also seen marches hijacked by the far right, even though they know that that is not representative of local people’s legitimate fears. I therefore hugely welcome today’s announcement that two hotels in Skegness will no longer be required for Government use. That is immense progress, but does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree with me that the local council and Government as a whole should work as quickly as possible to get those hotels returned to their proper use, rather than left to rot by unscrupulous owners?
Robert Jenrick
I am pleased that some of the hotels in my hon. Friend’s constituency will now be closed. He has seen just how challenging illegal migration can be, not least in the protests in his town and the strain that it has put on community cohesion. That is why we must stop the boats and reduce the number of people coming over in that manner. We will work with hoteliers as far as we can to help them to reopen their hotels successfully. The hotels are on different notice periods and that is one reason the announcement that we are making today is staggered. The majority are on three-month notice periods, which gives those hoteliers and their communities the time to prepare, take bookings, hire staff and come back to life.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the real progress that has been made in cutting the small boat crossings, and also, last month, for closing the Royal Hotel Kettering as an asylum hotel. When does the Minister expect to close the Rothwell House Hotel in Rothwell as an asylum accommodation centre?
Robert Jenrick
I am pleased that we were able to close the first hotel in my hon. Friend’s constituency the other day. I know that it was one he felt very strongly about indeed. As we make further progress with stopping the boats, we will be able to close more hotels, and he has made a strong case for the second one in his constituency.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that he is making. I am not sure what consideration he has given to this, but he has cited agreements on returns to a number of countries and also agreements with France. He may have been aware that France is announcing proposals to cancel visas, remove the right of leave to remain and force people to leave France. That potentially runs the risk of many more people choosing to take the dangerous route across the channel and come to our country. Will he take action to make sure that anyone who is in that position from France is immediately removed from this country?
Robert Jenrick
The comments that my hon. Friend has seen reported with respect to France are indicative of the much stronger postures being adopted by most European countries on this issue. In fact, Labour is now at odds with the common view of most of Europe today. Most European countries sense the extreme importance of this situation and are taking more robust action. That is generally to the benefit of the UK, as we are a destination country after people have passed through many others. We want to continue to work productively with France. In recent months, we have seen good work by the French, particularly the Gendarmerie and the préfet in northern France, who have been extremely helpful to us, by for example, as I said in my opening remarks, putting up barriers on canals and estuaries, which has made it more difficult for small boats to leave. We want to keep that good work going.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
In welcoming today’s statement, I also ask my right hon. Friend to deliver on the commitment that he made to me at the Dispatch Box on 5 September and confirm that the two hotels on Bostock’s Lane in Sandiacre are at the top of his priority list for closure. If he cannot give me that good news, why not?
Robert Jenrick
I did make a promise a year ago when I took on this role that we would close hotels, and I am pleased to be able to deliver on that today. We will be writing today or tomorrow to all those MPs and councils that are part of the first tranche. I am happy to stay in touch with my hon. Friend if she is not part of that tranche and to say to her that we will do everything we can to make sure that her hotels are exited very soon.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement today and the robust action that the Government are taking. Will he put on record that this country is still open to legal migration routes and that it is just the illegal migration routes that we are tackling? On the issue of the whole of Government approach, we are, of course, tackling the pull factors, but the push factors out of places such as north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, which he recently visited, include climate change, conflict, famine and poor governance. What more can we do across Government to stop those push factors?
Robert Jenrick
We want the UK to be a strategic partner of choice for all countries—whether in Europe or further upstream, such as in north Africa—that share our determination to tackle this issue. That is why I have travelled to a number of those countries, including Turkey, Tunisia and Algeria, to build relationships with them so that we can partner on organised immigration, crime and border security. I also work closely with the Foreign Secretary and the Development Minister to ensure that a large proportion of our foreign aid budget goes to refugee-producing countries. It is much better that the UK uses its resources upstream to support vulnerable people than always reaching to migration as the first response.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the engagement and time he has given to discuss the hotels in my constituency. Can he confirm that the Holiday Inn in Garforth and the Mercure Hotel in Wetherby, which are currently empty, will not be used for asylum seekers down the line? May I also take this opportunity to ask on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that the military base at Linton-on-Ouse, which was deemed to be thoroughly inappropriate at the time it was put forward, will not come forward in any future plans as we reduce the need for accommodation?
Robert Jenrick
We do not have a plan to make use of the site at Linton-on-Ouse that was previously considered. With respect to my right hon. Friend’s constituency, we will be writing to Members of Parliament and councils today, and if he is not fortunate enough to be in that first tranche, I assure him that there will be further tranches to come. We want to exit the hotels in their entirety; that does require us to keep making good progress with stopping the boats.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
I, too, welcome everything that I have heard my right hon. Friend say today. On Saturday, we witnessed the most appalling scenes of lawbreaking on the streets of our capital. Can the Minister reassure me that anyone found to have broken our laws and incited racial hatred and violence in this country who is here as an asylum seeker, or on a visa, including students, will have that status revoked and be removed?
Robert Jenrick
I have been very clear that people who spread hate and division in our country have no right to be here. Having a visa is a privilege, not an entitlement, and any foreign national who conducts themselves in that manner falls below the standards that we expect in our country, and will find that their visa is revoked and that they are expelled. We have already begun that process in a small number of cases, and I have written to all chief constables across England and Wales, inviting them to bring to our attention at the Home Office any examples that we should consider.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I was in northern France last week and saw very large numbers of people, visible in public spaces, waiting to put their lives at risk to make the journey across the channel to the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work being done with the French authorities has been a very important part of reducing the numbers crossing the channel? Will he commit to doing further work to develop what is happening, particularly in the area around Dunkirk, to prevent people moving away from the beaches, seeking to evade detection by the authorities in the channel, and using the network of canals to put asylum seekers in small boats across the channel?
Robert Jenrick
I wish to put on record the Government’s thanks to the French authorities for the work they have done over the course of this year. Of course, there is more to be done. We are always encouraging our French friends to go further, but they have put in place a number of significant steps, including the infrastructure that my hon. Friend describes, which is making it hard for so-called taxi boats to go through the canals and estuaries and out into the English channel. We are also working with Belgium, which is another important partner through which a number of migrants, engines and boats pass. The Prime Minister announced recently in Granada a new partnership with the Government of Belgium to deepen our ties in that regard.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the news that, although there is a long way to go to completely stop the boats, there has been a significant reduction. Likewise, I welcome the news on the first 50 hotels and was grateful to receive confirmation from his officials this morning that the Best Western in Buckingham would close on 23 November. However, given that I had previously been told that it would close on 9 September, may I ask him to confirm that these new dates are final and cannot be delayed, postponed or changed, and that the hotel will absolutely close on 23 November?
Robert Jenrick
Absolutely. I hope the letter he has received is written in blood. That hotel will close on the date in the letter.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work he has done on this issue. I have seen at first hand how hard he has worked over the last 12 months to make sure we make progress. On the upstream work, one thing we need to get a grip of is the industry of producing the crafts that are carrying these people across the channel. What work is he doing with our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to try to smash that industry, which is clearly an important part of the broader picture of stopping the boats once and for all?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend, who was a superb Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Home Office until recently, knows that we have worked very hard on smashing the people-smuggling gangs not just on the goal line of the beaches of northern France but further up the pitch in places such as Turkey and north Africa. That involves a lot of work by the National Crime Agency, Border Force and the security services in partnership with allies in those areas. We have signed important agreements on that over the summer, including with Turkey.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Minister deserves great credit for all the work he has done on this issue. I am really pleased that the Novotel in Ipswich will be put back to its proper use. At the heart of this issue is fairness, and when some of my constituents who are struggling to pay their energy bills and put food on the table see men—and they are all men—living in a four-star hotel, going to the buffet every day and not paying a penny, it strikes at the heart of that fairness. Does the Minister agree that those constituents who used to work in the hotel and were pressured to resign should be offered their jobs back, ideally on better terms than before? That is also connected to the fairness point.
Robert Jenrick
I feel very strongly that we are sent to this place to represent the interests of our constituents, and we should not elevate the interests of illegal migrants over those of the communities we are elected to serve. That is the approach that my hon. Friend has taken in fighting tenaciously to get that hotel closed to asylum seekers and returned to the community uses that his constituents value. We want to see more such hotels closed across the country.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for announcing that 50 hotels will close. Will he consider putting a list in the Library so that we are able to see the names—I have hotels bordering my constituency but not actually in it—and will he do that for further tranches too? The Government propose putting caps on the number of illegal migrants we are willing to take. When will that be brought forward for a vote, and when will the consultation finish, so that we can manage the demand?
Robert Jenrick
We will not publish the list under long-standing Home Office practice, as we are advised by the police that it is preferable not to name the hotels because we have seen protests and community tensions in the recent past.
We legislated for the cap in the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and we will shortly publish the consultation, which will ask every local authority how much capacity it has to house individuals who come to the UK through safe and legal routes. We will move away from an era in which we in Westminster posture and virtue signal while our local communities and councils have to pick up the bill. As a result of that consultation, we will bring forward our proposal to Parliament and have a vote on it, if colleagues so wish.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcements and the progress in this area. We urgently need to move people out of hotels and to instead provide stable, cost-effective accommodation that meets the needs of asylum seekers and the communities we serve. We all need to do our bit. We have received proposals from Home Office officials for asylum accommodation locally that would not work. The officials have been very helpful, but will the Minister agree to meet me and Runnymede Borough Council leader Tom Gracey to discuss alternative proposals to do our bit?
Robert Jenrick
I would be pleased to do so. One innovation that we have started this week is to write to all local authorities with an open offer: if they can bring forward better proposals for asylum accommodation than the Home Office’s providers, we would be happy to work directly with them. If my hon. Friend’s local council has ideas that would be more suitable, better value for money and more in line with the wishes of the local community, we will take them very seriously.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and thank him for hearing the many thousands of voices across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke who signed my petition to end Serco’s abuse of Stoke-on-Trent and get one of the two hotels closed. That is in stark contrast to Stoke-on-Trent Labour, which allowed us to become a dumping ground after it signed up to the asylum voluntary dispersal scheme. Labour is now led by a Leader of the Opposition who wants us to surrender our borders to Brussels and move them to the Mediterranean—[Interruption.] The shadow Immigration Minister also let the mask slip at Labour party conference by basically claiming that anyone who wants to control our borders is xenophobic. I note the moan from that Dispatch Box at the news that Stoke-on-Trent will have one of its hotels shut. Can the Minister tell me when the other hotel in Stoke-on-Trent will face closure? I hope it is as soon as possible, because Stoke-on-Trent has done its fair share already.
Robert Jenrick
No one in this place has fought harder to end the use of asylum hotels than my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Stoke-on-Trent. That is why it is so important that we have delivered on our promise to do so. We are stopping the boats and making progress, but there is still a long way to go. We want to stop the boats in their entirety, and as we do so more hotels in his constituency and elsewhere will close. The public can see what is happening: we are closing hotels, but the Opposition want to open our borders.
Points of Order
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in the statement. The immigration guidelines were changed in August 2023 to enable eviction within seven days as opposed to 28 days, and my hon. Friend has the letter from Clearsprings to the person she is representing that confirms a seven-day deadline. I wonder whether the Minister might wish to correct the record based on the exchange he had with my hon. Friend earlier.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As a rule, it is not correct to continue a statement with additional questions, but he appears to raise a genuinely new question arising from the statement. If the Minister would care to answer it, I will allow him to do so. If he prefers to write to the hon. Gentleman, that is also acceptable.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I could do both. I will write to set out our position, but from the information that has been made available to me, I suspect that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is mistaken. There is a twofold process: on granting an individual their asylum claim, they are notified that they have 28 days plus two days for postage to vacate their property. When they come to seven days before the end of that 28-day period, we then serve them with a notice to quit in accordance with the law. I am afraid she is mistaken.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the situation and I trust that that satisfies the shadow Minister’s point of order.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made an official visit to Charing Cross Hospital in my constituency. On arrival, he was joined by the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) and the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Hammersmith and Chiswick. They then proceeded to use the visit for party political purposes.
A video they recorded inside the hospital concludes by saying that the hospital has
“got a really, really great future here under the Conservatives.”
That will come as a surprise to my constituents who fought for seven years to stop Conservative Governments demolishing the hospital and, earlier this year, saw it taken out of the 2030 new hospital programme, putting £1 billion of essential funding at risk.
Paragraph 8.1 of the ministerial code states:
“Official facilities paid for out of public funds should be used for Government publicity and advertising but may not be used for the dissemination of material which is essentially party political.”
Can you advise me what steps I can take to see that that flagrant breach of the ministerial code is properly investigated?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for having given me notice of his intention to raise it. I am not absolutely clear: is he saying that a Minister visited his constituency but did not give him notice?
Andy Slaughter
No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am saying that the Minister visited and used official facilities for a party political purpose.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I heard that part of what the hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.] Order. I do not need all that talking while I am dealing with a point of order because it means I cannot hear anything. The hon. Gentleman’s main point is not that he was not notified of the visit but about the content of the visit. If it had been about notification, I could certainly have dealt with that from the Chair. The content of the visit is a matter for the ministerial code and not something I can deal with from the Chair, but I am confident that there are currently some senior Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman’s point will be taken seriously. If it is a matter for the ministerial code but cannot be dealt with from the Treasury Bench, he ought perhaps to write to the Speaker and the matter can then be discussed in that way.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I attempted earlier during Foreign Office questions to catch the Speaker’s eye, but was unsuccessful given the number of Members who were keen to speak. On Friday, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about a constituency case, asking him to ensure that consular assistance was provided for an imminent trial overseas. I am concerned that, given the heightened tensions in the middle east, my constituent’s case may not receive the attention that it deserves. His wife, young child and other family members are understandably very concerned about his situation. I would welcome any assistance that you can provide, Madam Deputy Speaker, in encouraging the Foreign Office, which I appreciate is under heavy pressure at the moment, to nevertheless take an urgent look at my constituent’s case and provide consular assistance.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I understand, from a compassionate point of view, why he wishes to raise that matter on the Floor of the House, but I think he knows that it is not a matter for the Chair. I understand why he wishes to have the matter raised and paid attention to immediately by Ministers, and I am confident that if he approaches the appropriate Minister in the usual way, the case will get the attention that it needs and that his constituent deserves. I hope that is helpful.
Parliamentary Sovereignty (Referendums)
Tuesday 24th October 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Sovereignty (Referendums) Bill 2022-23 View all Parliamentary Sovereignty (Referendums) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
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
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit Ministers of the Crown from making or implementing any legal instrument which is not consistent with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, unless it has been approved by a referendum; and for connected purposes.
This Bill does what it says on the tin. The point of it is to uphold the integrity and sovereignty of this great House and this great nation. It would, for example, prevent a future Government from overturning the democratic will of the British people by taking us back into the European Union without consulting the public in a referendum. Indeed, it would stop the Government from taking us into any union without public consent, and it would move power closer to the people.
However, the Bill would also stop something that threatens the people of our great nation right now. It would stop the Government from blindly accepting the World Health Organisation’s amendments to the international health regulations and the so-called post-pandemic agreement, which they appear intent on doing without even consulting this House, never mind the public. The Government signed up to the WHO pandemic preparedness treaty negotiations without a single word being uttered in Government time. The only time we have even mentioned it in this Parliament was on 17 April this year in a Westminster Hall debate forced by over 156,000 members of the public signing a petition. A further petition to reject the amendments to the IHR has closed, having reached over 116,000 signatures, but no time has yet been allocated for a debate.
Those two instruments, if followed, will control how future Governments can prepare and respond to emergencies. In my view, that would amount to making this House redundant. If allowed to progress, that treaty and the amendments to the IHR will fundamentally change the relationship between citizen and state, moving away from a parliamentary democracy that has been the envy of the world for centuries to an autocratic dictatorship led by the unelected and unaccountable director general of the WHO. That same organisation has been accused of undue Chinese influence, as well as of severely mismanaging and covering up the spread and origin of covid-19. That same organisation is mostly funded by commercial and private interests and has diplomatic immunity for its employees and families. What could possibly go wrong?
My North West Leicestershire constituents voted to leave the European Union in 2016—indeed, I campaigned for it, too—but they did not vote in their tens of thousands to leave the EU only to be subjected to an even more autocratic and unaccountable body that takes sovereignty away from this House and from our people. We voted to leave the European Union to take back control, not to give it away to the WHO or anybody else. We are all elected by our constituents to represent them and speak on their behalf, so when it comes to the matter of their sovereignty and protecting their freedoms and rights, surely it is our responsibility to defend those rights and privileges. We are custodians of that power and sovereignty only for a brief period, after which it must be returned intact to the people at the next election, so that they can again decide who will represent them for the next parliamentary period.
When it comes to giving sovereignty away, that decision must always go back to the people, and it requires a referendum. The people should decide whether they wish to give their sovereignty away, and, in this case, whether they want the director general of the WHO controlling their life, rather than the Government of the day. To give those powers away would be nothing short of a dereliction of our duties.
The WHO would like to paint a picture of the treaty and the amendments being all about nation states working together in harmony to fight deadly pathogens, when they are in fact a power grab by an unaccountable elite. They do not want a debate on that; they would quite happily see it passed through the back door without a word being mentioned. That is not my idea of an open parliamentary democracy. The director general of the WHO will have the ability to call a public health emergency of international concern—the acronym is PHEIC, Madam Deputy Speaker—and take absolute powers to control the lives of all citizens of our sovereign nation. That is a power grab not just in this nation, but in all nations around the globe who sign up.
The new powers that the WHO will gain include the freedom to declare a pandemic—or even the potential for a pandemic—at which point all decision-making powers fall under the control of the WHO. The powers would also include the ability to call an emergency owing to human pathogens, animal pathogens, a perceived environmental threat or even the risk of any of the above; and the freedom to impose lockdown restrictions on all individuals in member states and make vaccinations or other medications mandatory, such as vaccines made in 100 days by skipping human trials and shaving safety and efficacy testing down to the bare bones. Furthermore, the WHO would seek power on the right to specify the use of certain medications in medical emergencies, and ban others—to decide healthcare for every person, with local doctors being forced to follow WHO edicts. The power to require a global health passport to be carried would also be given to those unelected bureaucrats in Geneva. Nations would be required to surveil and censor the press and social media so that no dissenting voices can be heard. The removal of the clause relating to human rights is unforgivable.
The recommendations that the WHO issued during the covid-19 pandemic were exactly that: recommendations. They were advisory, and it was up to sovereign Governments and sovereign Parliaments to implement or ignore them—Sweden bravely and successfully chose to ignore them. This treaty would make the WHO’s recommendations mandatory without a debate in this House or, indeed, any other elected Chamber of nations that sign up to these flawed agreements.
As George Santayana said, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. I have some severe worries that the lessons of the last pandemic have not been learned by the WHO itself, as it will not even have a review of its recommendations during the pandemic, so sure is it that its advice was absolutely perfect—when, in fact, we know from independently conducted reviews that it was a litany of disasters, lockdowns, mandatory experimental vaccines and masks, all of which caused our population and economy huge harm. We are in danger of giving this organisation even more powers to overreach itself and repeat those catastrophic mistakes.
Do we really want a repeat of the measures recommended by the WHO that resulted in £400 billion on the national debt, which has caused ravaging inflation, not to mention the huge NHS waiting lists, 1 million young people in need of mental health support and the damage to our children’s education and development? That begs the question, why on earth would anyone be willing to give away our sovereignty without consulting this House or the people? That is something I am not content with, and I suspect many colleagues here today share my concerns—or perhaps some of them think, rather like those who were deciding the regulations at the last pandemic, that the rules would not apply to them. I can assure hon. and right hon. Members that they will.
The very democracy that we have taken for granted all our lives is now under threat, but it is not under threat from invading armies hailing from hostile nations. No, our democracy is under threat due to the apparent corruption and decay of our own Government institutions, which are allowing this power grab to happen. Members in this Chamber should never forget that we are the servants of the people, not their masters, and the servants should never sell out their masters.
In my opinion, anyone who supports either of these WHO instruments—I refuse to call one of them an agreement, because I have not agreed to it, and neither have the people of North West Leicestershire; indeed, I think the majority of my constituents would never agree to these instruments—and any Member of this Parliament who would hand over these powers to a such discredited organisation as the WHO does not deserve a seat in this Chamber or any elected Assembly around the world.
In conclusion, to even contemplate giving away these sorts of powers to this sort of body, which affect not just the democratic rights but the human rights of every single man, woman and child in our nation, without a referendum would be quite simply catastrophic. People have said that this would lead to one world government. In fact, it is rather worse; it will be a one world dictatorship. Signing up to this treaty and binding ourselves to the WHO without a single debate on it, a single vote on it or asking the general public what they think would make being a member of the European Union look like a democratic paradise by comparison. That is why we need this Bill. I am aware that, with the looming prospect of Prorogation, even if the House supports my motion today, the Bill will fall in a few days’ time. However, as the phrase goes, I will be back.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Bridgen and Mr Philip Hollobone present the Bill.
Andrew Bridgen accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 377).
Prisons
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
I beg to move,
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 16 October, be approved.
Last week my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made a statement to the House setting out a number of reforms in which our sharp focus is public safety. We will ensure that the worst offenders stay locked up for longer; further enlarge our prison capacity, building on the recent growth that has been achieved, which is unprecedented since the Victorians; and ensure that that capacity is put to best use for public protection.
The removal of foreign national offenders is a priority for this Government. Between January 2019 and March 2023, we removed 14,700 foreign national offenders from the country, but there are still 10,000 FNOs in our prisons, each of them taking up a prison place at great expense to the British taxpayer. While my Department is working closely with the Home Office to increase removals, there is still more that can be done.
As the Lord Chancellor set out in his statement, it cannot be right that some of these individuals are sitting in prison when they could otherwise be removed from the country. The early removal scheme exists to deport foreign national offenders. This means that any foreign national who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence—with the exception of those convicted of terrorism or terror-related offences—is considered for deportation. We also remove foreign offenders through prisoner transfer agreements, which enable prisoners to be repatriated during their prison sentence. Those agreements also operate to bring British national offenders back to the UK, and we currently have over 80 such arrangements in place with other countries.
The early removal scheme—the subject of this debate—allows for foreign national offenders to be removed before the end of their sentence, subject to a minimum time being served. Once removed, they are subsequently barred from re-entering the UK, and we are clear that any illegal re-entry will see them returned to prison, where they will serve the rest of their sentence. The draft instrument before us today will ensure that certain foreign national offenders can be removed earlier.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Could my right hon. Friend the Minister clarify that last point? Is he saying that someone who is removed at the end of his or her sentence cannot come back once they are free? They have served their time here, and therefore, in principle, they have paid the price for their crime, but if they go back to their country and want to come back, they are not allowed to do so.
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend is correct that, when someone is deported in this way, they are not allowed to return. Were there time remaining on the sentence, as I outlined, that time would be servable if they did come back illegally.
This instrument will ensure that certain foreign national offenders can be removed earlier. We seek to extend the removal window in the early removal scheme from 12 months to 18 months, meaning that we would be able to deport an eligible foreign national offender up to six months earlier, still subject to the minimum required proportion of time having been served. This builds on changes we introduced last year in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which extended the maximum from nine to 12 months. As I just alluded to, we also added the “stop the clock” provision, so that anyone removed from the UK under the early removal scheme will have their sentence paused following removal and reactivated if they illegally return to the UK at any point, which means returning to prison to complete their sentence.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is unsustainable that foreign national offenders in our prisons are costing the taxpayer £500 million a year, and that the actions he is taking will ensure that there are savings in the system, so that prisons can work more efficiently?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is exactly right about the significant costs involved. It is expensive to keep somebody in custody, at an average of £47,000 a year, and we want to make sure that the British taxpayer is not paying unnecessarily for people who do not need to be here and can be removed to their home country and not be allowed to return. Extending the window to 18 months will make it possible to do so for certain foreign national offenders at an earlier point. In preparation for this change, the Home Office is increasing the number of caseworkers to facilitate those removals, and that is the central part of the combined effort between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
On that point, does my right hon. Friend share my concern that Opposition Members have previously tried to block the deportation of dangerous criminals, and can he tell me what the Home Office can do to ensure that does not happen again?
Damian Hinds
I very much share that concern. It is all very well for people to say that they are in favour of making these removals, but their actions have to follow their words. I am afraid that, all too often, that is not what we have seen from Opposition Members, as my hon. Friend rightly points out.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I think the Minister said that offenders sentenced to over a year would be considered for deportation. Is it the case that there is a duty to remove those offenders and that that would also apply to anyone with EU settled status convicted for over a year—they would be returned to their home country and barred from coming back to the UK?
Damian Hinds
Of course, the rules are as per the broader immigration rules and people’s citizenship rights. What we need to make sure is that, at the earliest opportunity, we are making that move and deporting those eligible foreign national offenders to their home country. We estimate that this change will add around 300 foreign national offenders to the early removal scheme’s eligible caseload at any one time. In addition to that scheme, as I mentioned, we have prisoner transfer agreements, including our new agreement with Albania, which came into force in May last year. We are looking to negotiate further such agreements.
We are a Government who are unashamedly tough on crime. By removing more foreign national offenders earlier in their sentence, we will be saving the taxpayer money, banishing criminals from our shores, and ensuring we have sufficient prison places to keep the worst offenders locked up for longer.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his speech, and for a valiant attempt to defend 13 years of failure, not just within our prisons but across the wider criminal justice system. The Opposition will be supporting this order—the change to the timing of release for foreign national offenders—because the Government have got themselves into a mess and, once again, it is the job of the Opposition to help them get out of that mess. We will be supporting this change because we are a responsible party, and because we know that the crisis in our prisons needs to be addressed. The order is a necessary measure to tackle the overcrowding crisis in our prison estate. However, I want to make it clear that it is a half-baked measure, cooked up in a panic in the Department. It is a change that has neither been consulted on nor planned, one that comes as part of a quick rush to address the overcrowding crisis—a crisis that has been long coming, but I will get on to that later.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we are both old enough to know that this is a theme under Conservative Governments. I recall that, back in the 1990s, prisons were so poor that prisoners were escaping with ease—the Conservatives are in such dire straits that they have begun recycling their scandals. It is no wonder that the public, having been through this, know what failure looks like. That is what we are confronted with today: a failure to protect the public, a failure to protect victims, and a failure by the Government to ensure that our prisons have enough space.
I will cover three areas in my remarks: the lack of planning around our prison population, the implementation of this new programme, and the wider issues around victims. Let us first look at the lack of planning. The overcrowding crisis in our prisons has been looming for years, with the National Audit Office, the Justice Select Committee and the Chief Inspector of Prisons all having warned the Government about it. In 2020, the Government were told specifically by the National Audit Office that they were unlikely to be able to build the 20,000 prison places they promised by the mid-2020s on time, yet the Government ignored that warning. I guess those 20,000 prison places are in the same place in the sky as the 40 new hospitals and 50,000 new nurses.
Back in 2016, the then Conservative Prime Minister said of the Prison Service that
“the failure of our system today is scandalous”.
If it was scandalous in 2016, I am not sure what word we would need to use now—perhaps something rather unparliamentary. When asked about this failure, the Government and the Ministry of Justice will point to the new prison places they promised, yet only around 25% of those places have been delivered. Plans for new prisons have been delayed and I understand from a report in The Guardian that one MOJ official said that badgers—yes, badgers—were to blame for a delay in building a new prison. The crisis has got so bad that the Government have been forced to use police cells as alternatives to prison places.
We should also remember that this is not the first time that the Government have made promises about the removal of foreign national offenders. Back in 2015, the then Prime Minister, the former Member for Witney, spent £25 million to help Jamaica build a new prison—of course, like a lot of the promises he made, it fell through. Successive Conservative Governments have made promise after promise on foreign national prisoners, and those promises have fallen through every time. This is not even the first time that this policy has been looked at: we saw changes regarding foreign nationals in recent legislation, and the Government considered changes to the early removal scheme last year.
Paul Holmes
The shadow Minister has mentioned overcrowding in our prisons, which is a problem. As the Minister outlined, there are 10,000 foreign national offenders in our prison estate. I welcome the fact that the shadow Minister will vote for the motion today, but can she explain to this House why at every stage, her party has voted against legislative measures to ensure that those people are removed, which would remove the problem that she is castigating us for?
Ruth Cadbury
I am new to this brief, but I do not believe that is the case.
If the Government considered this change in the past, why did they not introduce it back then? Did they think it was better to wait for a crisis? We should remember that this prison crisis—which has been looming for years—is having an impact every day on prison staff, inmates and the victims of crime. We still have prisoners having to use a bucket as a toilet in their cell. We have prisoners locked up for 22 hours a day, and prisons so understaffed that prison officers cannot even take prisoners to the library or to classrooms for education. Education is so essential to those prisoners’ rehabilitation, and for many of them, it is a condition of their eventual release. It is no wonder that the latest figures show that the reoffending rate has risen: it now stands at 25% for male former prisoners. That cycle of crime creates more victims.
I now turn to the detail of the order and its implementation. The policy will require significant input from the Home Office, along with the MOJ. As one prison governor has said,
“I expect it will require significant numbers of new Home Office staff for this initiative to be effective.”
We understand that the Home Office already faces huge problems with staffing, and I am sure I speak for many Members across the House when I say that I do not have complete faith—or even much faith at all—in the Home Office after the mess we have seen them make over the past year. Nor can I say I have much faith in the Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), who always seems to be auditioning for the role of the next Leader of the Opposition.
We also know that this Government have talked a lot about foreign national offenders, but after 13 years of Conservative rule, the number of removals of FNOs has dropped by 40%. The Government will point to the impact of covid, but in 2022, the Government were removing around half the number of foreign national offenders that they were pre-covid. What are the Government doing differently this time? Whether they are removing foreign nationals with 12 or 18 months left of their sentence, the point remains that the Government still need to be able to remove offenders from the UK.
I am sure the Minister will have prepared lines about the Opposition and our approach, so I will give him advance notice that we do have a plan. Labour would create a returns unit to triage and fast-track the removal of those who have no right to be in the UK, including foreign national offenders. We will recruit an additional 1,000 Home Office caseworkers to tackle the drop in removals that we have seen since the Conservatives entered office in 2010.
Having looked at both the Government’s statement last week and the memorandum attached to this statutory instrument, I could not see any information about the estimated cost or the additional resources needed, including for any legal costs or challenges to deportation. The Government need to set out exactly how many more caseworkers are needed and how much this plan will cost the taxpayer. The prisons crisis is already costing taxpayers; for example, over £20 million is spent on using police cells for prisoners, and I suspect that number will rise. A running theme from last week’s announcement is the large hole in funding. In particular, the grossly overstretched probation service will be expected to pick up a lot of the pieces from the Government’s latest crisis.
I want to finish by speaking about victims, in the context of both this statutory instrument and the wider criminal justice system. As a party, we have been clear that we want a justice system that works for victims, protects them from crime and supports them. I have one question for the Minister: could foreign offenders who commit violent or sexual offences be freed to their home country up to 18 months early because of this change? Will he take this opportunity to reassure victims that that will not be allowed to happen? Victims of crime will be worried that perpetrators will be released early. Over the past month, I have heard from prison staff, probation officers, inspectors, non-governmental organisations and so many across the criminal justice system about just how much of a mess our prisons and wider justice system are in, and that is because of 13 years of Conservative misrule and mismanagement.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor announced a package of measures to address offender management, and I thanked him for his contribution and the proposals that he outlined. Importantly, we spoke then, and I want to speak again today, about the removal of foreign national offenders from our country.
It is absolutely right that the Government do everything they possibly can to remove foreign national offenders, because they are living in the UK—often on visas, and using our laws to keep themselves here when they actually have no right to remain in this country—while committing offences and posing a danger to the public. That breach of public safety is a clear violation of their right to remain in the UK. When an offender is convicted and given a custodial sentence, it is a high bar to qualify for deportation. Certainly during my three years as Home Secretary, as the Minister mentioned, we deported around 12,000 foreign national offenders, despite the pandemic and the travel restrictions at the time. With each FNO deported, our streets and communities become that little bit safer, and that is something on which we should all be focused. Those who remain in this country still pose a risk to safety. Sadly, we have seen some come out of our prisons, stay in our communities and commit further dangerous offences and serious crimes.
As Ministers on the Front Bench know, some in this House—I have to say this quite starkly, particularly having listened to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—have campaigned on this year after year. In December 2020, when I was Home Secretary, 70 Opposition Members wrote to me to stop a deportation flight to Jamaica, and murderers, rapists, drug dealers—you name it—were on that flight. Day after day, Home Office Ministers would come to this House and do a valiant job in speaking about protecting the public and why the people on these flights had to be removed. It is quite shameful to hear such a level of denial from the shadow Minister, which I simply do not think is at all acceptable.
I was lobbied, day in and day out—often through national newspapers, I should add. Letters were even sent to me by those on the Opposition Front Bench, in which they relentlessly broadcast their support for criminals, as they did on social media. They made the case for murderers and sex offenders staying in our country and being able to live in our communities. They made human rights claims to enable dangerous criminals to stay in our country. They have shown more respect for and interest in the rights of these dangerous criminals than those of the victims, or in the public safety of people in our country. That is why I say, as a former Home Secretary, that the Labour party can never be trusted on law and order issues, or on offender management, and its previous track record on them speaks volumes. Living in the UK is a privilege, and those who come here, break our laws and commit serious offences should expect to have their rights removed and their liberty taken away. This is why we should be unapologetic and robust in our approach to the removal of FNOs.
The SI will enable FNOs to be deported directly from prisons sooner—18 months, rather than 12 months, before release point. It is vital that offenders be removed from our country. Of course, everyone wants that, including the public, and victims in particular. I spent time during my period in Government with the victims of some of the most appalling crimes committed by FNOs, and those victims’ lives are shattered when they see those individuals not being removed from our country, but being left to be released and to rebuild their life in our country at the taxpayers’ cost, which is just wrong. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister a series of questions about the practicalities of how this scheme will work, as the change is significant and has an impact on the punitive and deterrent element of sentencing.
First, what consideration will the Government give to the impact on a victim of the early removal scheme, and the measures allowing release 18 months early? Many victims will expect an offender to be in custody for as long as possible, as punishment for their crimes, and they will have concerns about an offender being released and enjoying freedom in the country of their nationality. Victims of rape, sexual offences and other serious offences will rightly have significant concerns about the perpetrators of these horrific crimes effectively receiving back a degree of their liberty. I have a constituent who was a victim of such a crime, and prior to this measure coming in—under the current arrangement, which allows release 12 months early—she was concerned about the person who caused her the most appalling harm being at liberty, even if no longer in this country, and she made representations to me that the offender should not be allowed to be released early. It would be helpful if the Minister spoke about the practicalities of how these offenders will be managed.
Secondly, I would welcome from the Minister details about the communications that victims will receive. As we know, the Victims and Prisoners Bill is going through this House. Many of us from across the House have campaigned for it—in my case, for almost a decade. It gives a welcome focus on victims, and I back the Bill for supporting the rights of victims in the criminal justice system and getting that system rebalanced. That Bill is coming in because of the concern and frustration of victims, obviously including the victims of FNOs. I hope that the Minister will provide assurances and clarity about how victims will be supported. They do get some communication, but they are heavily retraumatised when they hear about those individuals being released from prison, given the implications that that may have.
Thirdly, given that some offenders will be dangerous, and will show no signs of remorse or make any efforts to rehabilitate, will there still be a process for keeping dangerous offenders locked up, rather than eligible for early release?
Fourthly, can the Minister explain how the Government will deal with the enforcement of this scheme when an offender—and I am sorry to say this—makes human rights claims to try to block and frustrate their deportation from the UK? Again, that brings me back to the appeals I used to receive from the Labour party when I was Home Secretary.
On the other measures announced by the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor last week, I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister can give further details and assurances, particularly on the offender management package and the proposals for staffing. I appreciate that I am asking for specific information on staffing, but that has implications for overall offender management. This statutory instrument is of course part of a wider package, and we are not discussing that entire package today, but Ministers on the Front Bench will know of my concerns about the possibility that we will see a repeat of what happened under the early release schemes of the last Labour Government, when offenders committed crimes and absconded. That caused serious concerns and had serious implications for public safety. I am looking for reassurance from the Minister about how the Government’s approach will differ from that of previous schemes, and how we will ensure that victims feel that justice is done, and reassurance that there will be a solid effort to reduce reoffending and its causes.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this statutory instrument. The programme set out by the Lord Chancellor for managing the prison population is proportionate and sensible. There is a big backlog and delays in court because of covid; having 10,000 foreign nationals in our prisons is very expensive, and if we are to make place for others, this seems a logical place to start. I have heard some people speak about the crisis of having record numbers in prison, but we were elected to put record numbers into prison, so most of my constituents will be rather pleased.
We need to build more prisons, which we are doing, but the planning system is sometimes painfully slow, and we need to manage what we have. Foreign prisoners seem to be a sensible place to start; we can clear out those places and send more people to prison. What we have here is sensible, and if we work through the measures announced by the Lord Chancellor, and are given some of the reassurances that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) asked for, I think Conservative Members will be very pleased indeed.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
This is a perfectly sensible measure. I support it, as I hope will the whole House. It is a modest measure that will not make a vast difference, but it is worth while and part of an overall very sensible package that the Justice Secretary announced. We must be honest: the pressure in our prisons is the result of decades of underfunding. All parties have responsibility for that. It is not a question of blaming one Government or another; there has been a long period of this. We must also level with the British public: whenever we in this House demand longer prison sentences, or to lock more people up, it comes at a cost to the public purse. We must be up front with the public. Locking someone up in prison is sometimes necessary for public protection, but it is also exceedingly expensive, at £45,000 to £47,000 or so per annum.
As well as introducing this discrete measure, and the other measures in the package announced last week, we must think seriously about who should be in prison. Prison ought to be for those who are a threat or who are dangerous, but as anyone who has dealt with the system will know—some of us have done so for most of our working life—many people in prison are there because of inadequacy or failures earlier along the track. There are failures in education or in mental health, failures in parenting or social services, and failures in a raft of other areas around addiction and so on. People are there because their life is in a mess. They have done wrong and committed crimes, and they certainly need a degree of punishment, but lengthy periods of prison are not the answer; that is a very expensive way of dealing with things. We have to use prisons sensibly, and be honest about the fact that a degree of rationing is required.
The SI takes a sensible approach, and as I think the Minister will confirm, it does not alter the requirement that a prisoner should have served at least half their custodial sentence prior to release. The pre-release custodial period—the punitive bit—is not changed by this measure, but once someone has gone past that, we can bring forward their release date by 18 months, rather than by 12 months. That is a modest and sensible proposal, but we need a serious debate later in this House about the right way to make use of an expensive, necessary, valuable, but very pricey institution.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I remind hon. Members of my declared interest, in that my brother is chair of the Prison Reform Trust. The statutory instrument is a sensible step forward. A number of measures have been taken to try to alleviate the pressure on our prison system, not least given the large numbers—disproportionate numbers, one could argue—of foreign nationals still in custody in England and Wales. I support the statutory instrument, but I ask the Minister to look at some of the agreements in place for prisoner transfer, to see whether the SI will have an additional, hopefully positive, effect on the statistics.
Last week, the Justice Committee meet an Albanian Minister who was very receptive to the compulsory arrangement put in place between our country and his. It seems that there is scope to go further with some of the measures that we are introducing. Will the Minister confirm how many of those whom we seek to remove through these measures will be women, and how many will be people in youth custody? It would be helpful to get those numbers as part of the overall package, so that we can understand what support and additional resources may be needed to ensure that the removal happens in the appropriate way.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful for all the contributions to this SI debate, including from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the former Home Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson).
The Chair of the Justice Committee rightly spoke about the need to combine punishment and rehabilitation. Ultimately, the system is for public safety, and both those sides are incredibly important. He rightly said that we must use the system sensibly. He asked me specifically to confirm that this measure does not alter the minimum 50% of time in custody, and he is correct about that. On the point about Albania, we need to make all our prisoner transfer agreements work as effectively as possibly, and with Albania we have a particularly good partnership. It is a very innovative transfer agreement and I am sure there is further that we can go. I will write soon to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury on the question he asked about women.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham rightly raised points about victims, and victims must always be at the heart of what we do. I confirm that the victim contact scheme applies in these cases, and I confirm again that the minimum proportion of time in custody also applies. It is not just that the sentence is longer; the proportion of time served will be longer, and it is important that we see that in the context of longer sentences. The average sentence in custody is now considerably longer than it was in 2010. Critically, the move for some of the worst offences from the automatic halfway release point to two thirds of the sentence interacts with this measure, and means that many people will be spending longer in prison than they would otherwise. Overall there is discretion not to remove someone, and that is exercised in certain cases.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth rightly pointed out that the prison population has grown. She is correct about that. Last week a comprehensive plan was set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary, which ensures that the worst offenders will stay in prison for longer, and that we also make best use of the capacity we have. The hon. Lady also talked about overcrowding, and I gently remind her that prison overcrowding is lower than it was at the time of the change of Government in 2010, and that there are 2,000 fewer people in overcrowded conditions in our prison population than there were when the Labour party was in government. I also gently ask: where are her Titans? If the Labour party’s build programme had taken place as planned, many of these things would not have come to pass.
The plan set out by my right hon. and learned Friend builds on what has already been achieved, first in the rapid increase in capacity that we have seen, with 5,000 places over the past year, and tougher sentences for the worst offenders, and also with the progress on rehabilitation and what has been done on drugs, employment and housing. That has resulted in the reoffending rate coming down. That is so important, because most crime is repeat crime, and when the reoffending rate comes down, overall crime comes down. That is exactly what we have seen.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth asked why we have not done this before, and the answer is that we have, given the changes that we made in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including the stop-the-clock provisions, and the new prisoner transfer agreements, including the agreement that I alluded to with Albania. That combination of factors has seen an increase of 14% in the number of foreign national offenders removed recently, year-on-year.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2023 will extend the benefits of the scheme by bringing forward the time from which a foreign national offender can be removed. This draft instrument is a critical part of the approach of the Ministry of Justice and Home Office to removing foreign national offenders from our prisons and our country. It will ensure that taxpayers’ money is best used to protect the public, and I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Tuesday 24th October 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 24 October 2023 - (24 Oct 2023)
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 177 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 176 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 70
Local authorities: hybrid meetings
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22B.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to insist on disagreement to Lords amendment 45, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Rachel Maclean
As we know from proceedings on this Bill in this place, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is important to this country’s future. It will ensure that this Government and future Governments set clear, long-term objectives for addressing entrenched geographical disparities. It will devolve powers to all areas in England where there is demand for that, allowing local leaders to regenerate their towns and cities and restore pride in places. It further strengthens protections for the environment, so that better outcomes are at the heart of planning decisions.
In the course of the many debates on local authority remote meetings during this Bill’s passage, the Government have consistently expressed our strong view that councillors should be physically present to cast their votes and interact in person with citizens. Our position on this matter has not changed. Therefore, the Government cannot support Lords amendment 22B, which would enable any Government in future to go as far as allowing all local authorities to meet virtually at any and every opportunity.
Turning to climate change, I reiterate that the Government agree that the planning system must support our efforts in meeting our legal net-zero commitments by 2050 and tackling the risks of climate change. However, we have heard the strength of feeling in both Houses about making sure that national planning policy supports our efforts in tackling the risks of climate change. Therefore, the Government have now gone a step further in tabling an amendment that will require the drafting of policies that are to be designated as national development management policies to
“have regard to the need to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change”,
taking into account the range of climate scenarios and risk relevant to the policies being developed.
I will conclude my brief remarks by again expressing gratitude to my colleagues here and in the other place for their continued and dedicated engagement with this complicated and complex Bill during its parliamentary passage. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members will agree that the Government have shown that we have listened carefully to the views of Members from all parts of the House as we seek to improve this nationally important piece of legislation.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I supported the two amendments that the other place has returned to us in their previous guise last week, when I urged the Government to accept them. It is welcome that we have the opportunity to consider these two important issues again.
With regard to the holding of virtual meetings by councils, I prefer the original Lords amendment 22, which provided local authorities with the local discretion to pursue a common-sense and pragmatic approach on the form and conduct of their meetings. That said, the amendment in lieu tabled by my right hon. and noble Friend, Baroness McIntosh, is pragmatic, conciliatory and takes into account the Government’s concerns about council meetings being held solely online. I urge the Government to consider it in the spirit in which it has been put forward.
I also re-emphasise other considerations that were raised in last week’s debate. Set in the overall context of a Bill that gives local communities and local councils greater discretion and greater autonomy and looks to devolve powers away from Whitehall, it is perverse that the Government are dictating to local authorities how they conduct themselves. There is, as we heard last week, 90% to 95% support from local councils, clerks and their representative bodies for this provision. They understand best the challenges that they face, and they are responsible people who will use wisely any discretion with which they are provided. The provision will strengthen local democracy and will make it easier for such groups as the disabled, parents with young children, carers and those in full-time employment to participate in decision making in their own local communities. For those local authorities that cover large geographical areas, such as Suffolk County Council and the Broads Authority, it is sensible to hold some meetings virtually, rather than insisting that councillors—some of whom are elderly—travel long distances, often in inclement weather, such as we had last week.
When we debated this issue last Tuesday, there was widespread disquiet on the Government Benches about the straitjacket approach that the Government are pursuing. I would be grateful if in her summing up my hon. Friend could outline the strategy that the Government will be putting in place to address those concerns, if they reject the sensible and conciliatory amendment 22B.
In the wake of Storm Babet, the Lords have asked us to look again at amendment 45. The weekend’s events highlighted the need for climate change mitigation to be fully and deeply embedded in local and national planning policy. Although the Government are proposing again to reject the amendment, they have proposed their own alternative, which is to be welcomed. It is necessary to consider, first, whether that will help deliver a more consistent alignment of planning policy and development management with the existing framework for tackling climate change and, secondly, whether it will provide the certainty, consistency and clarity required to deliver the enormous amount of private sector funding required to achieve our net-zero obligations.
I would be grateful if my hon. Friend answered the following questions in her summing up. Will the Government’s amendment bridge the gap in planning policy due to the delay in the review of the national planning policy framework? Will she give an assurance that the review will start as soon as possible, and ideally provide a timescale?
Secondly, there is presently an inconsistency in that a local planning authority’s well thought-through and bespoke climate change mitigation policies can be overturned by either the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate. In that context, will my hon. Friend advise whether the Government’s amendment in lieu removes that contradiction, which undermines proactive and bespoke local planning?
I am grateful to you for your time, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is welcome that the Lords have provided us with a further opportunity to improve the Bill. While the two amendments are in many respects very different, they both give local communities a full opportunity to shape the future of the places where they live and work and, in doing so, achieve meaningful regeneration and levelling up.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow that characteristically sensible speech from the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I put on record our thanks for their lordships’ continued engagement on the Bill and all the work they have done on it over many months. After considering an extensive number of Lords amendments to the Bill last week, just two issues remain for us to debate again. The first is remote local government meetings.
Labour remains firmly of the view that while in-person council meetings should continue to predominate, there are circumstances in which virtual or hybrid local government meetings might be either useful or necessary. We also maintain that permitting their use in certain instances would have a number of additional benefits, not least in helping to reduce barriers to public engagement in the planning process, which is a goal shared across the House. As has been previously noted, an extremely broad range of organisations support change in this area, including the Local Government Association, Lawyers in Local Government, the Association of Democratic Services Officers, the Society of Local Council Clerks and the National Association of Local Councils. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) pointed out during last week’s debate, evidence from NALC suggests that support for it among local councils is overwhelming, with 90% of town and parish councils wanting the ability to hold virtual meetings in some form to widen participation.
As we just heard, it is not just those organisations and authorities and those on the Labour Benches who support greater local discretion in this area. In last weeks’ debate, the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and the hon. Members for Buckingham, for Waveney and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) all expressed support for a degree of flexibility so that councils could enable remote participation in meetings in certain circumstances. No one is arguing that we should require every local government meeting to be virtual or hybrid. Doing so would clearly undermine the principle that members of the public should have suitable opportunities to interact in-person with their local representatives. Instead, the case is being made for a degree of local discretion so that such meetings would be permitted in certain circumstances.
Lords amendment 22B addresses the Government’s understandable concern that permitting councils to hold wholly virtual meetings might have unintended and adverse consequences for local democracy. The amendment would allow Ministers to determine by regulations the range of circumstances in which hybrid meetings could take place. For example, they might choose to enable parish councillors in more remote parts of a given authority area to attend meetings virtually while ensuring that most are still required to be present in person. To take another example, they might choose to allow members of the public—say, people with mobility issues or those with children—to participate actively in planning committees, while councillors would still be required to attend in person. We believe that this is a reasonable and proportionate amendment, and we will support it.
The second issue concerns the planning system’s role in mitigating and adapting to global heating. The Government’s amendment in lieu is noticeably weaker than Lords amendment 45 as it applies only to national development management policies rather than all national policy, planning policy or advice relating to the development or use of land. It also excludes precise statutory definitions of what constitutes mitigation and adaptation. Nevertheless, we welcome that the Government have made a concession on this issue by tabling their amendment.
However, while we welcome the fact that the Government’s amendment in lieu would ensure consideration of climate mitigation and adaptation in the preparation or modification of NDMPs, it would not achieve what Lords amendment 45 would: namely, to establish genuine coherence between the planning system and our country’s climate commitments, not least by requiring local planning authorities to have regard to climate when making decisions on individual planning applications. The planning system in its current form is manifestly failing to play its full part in addressing the climate emergency. Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that it is actively hindering our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change in myriad different ways.
The Bill is a missed opportunity to fully align the planning system with our climate mitigation and adaptation goals and ensure that new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places. The provisions in the Bill that require local plans to be designed in such a way as to contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change are welcome, but they are transposed from existing legislation introduced 15 years ago, and, alone, they are not sufficient. The promised related update to the national planning policy framework to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible is vital, but it will not take place until well after the Bill has received Royal Assent if it materialises at all during what remains of this Parliament.
As we have argued consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, there is a pressing need for clear and unambiguous national policy guidance on climate change, a purposeful statutory framework to align every aspect of the planning system with net zero, and an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan making to achieve climate change mitigation and adaptation when preparing plans and policies or exercising their planning decision-making functions.
The Climate Change Committee recommended in its 2022 progress report that
“Net zero and climate resilience should be embedded within the planning reforms”
contained in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
As things stand, they have not been. In this week—of all weeks—when we have seen once again the impact on communities across the country of the more frequent extreme weather events that climate change is driving, we should look to improve how the planning system responds to the climate emergency. The Government amendment in lieu is welcome, but it does not go far enough. For that reason, we will support Lords amendment 45.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I would like to start by thanking the Minister for her involvement in the very long saga that is the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which, finally may be drawing to a close. It is good to see the areas of difference between the two Houses reduced.
I appreciate that Lords amendment 22 on councils meeting virtually is a significant issue, as it could set a precedent for other parts of the public sector. I understand the Government’s concerns and why they have resisted it up to now, but I hope there is room for further compromise and at least some flexibility to allow councils to deploy hybrid meetings. If the amendment still goes too far, I hope that Ministers can come up with something, perhaps specifically in the planning context or in at least some circumstances, to make the life of our local councillors a little easier. We must remember that they do a difficult job; they work hard and many are trying to hold down day jobs at the same time. A bit more flexibility for virtual meetings could help to enhance democratic participation.
An amendment that we did not get back from their lordships was on NDMPs. I have a certain amount of regret about that, because I continue to believe that the replacement of local development management policies with a single centralised diktat is the wrong approach. However, I welcome the fact that, thanks to the Government’s amendments in lieu, we now see in the Bill a commitment to consult on NDMPs. That was an important part of the compromise announced last December by the Secretary of State to tackle problems outlined in the amendments package headed by new clause 21, which I tabled. It resulted from concerns felt by many on the Government Benches about problems leading to massive pressure for blocks of flats in the suburbs and housing estates on greenfield and agricultural land in rural areas. Now, we need to see the remainder of that package delivered by the national planning policy framework. Once again, I encourage and urge Ministers to get that published.
We also need to see the new set of planning policy guidance—another document that will be crucial to ensuring that the reforms promised in the planning system deliver real change. Concern remains among Back Benchers about the rush for volume of units at all costs. We all accept the need for new homes and want more homes built, but they need to be the right homes in the right places. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, strongly agree with that.
With that in mind, I can understand the rationale of Lords amendment 45 on climate change mitigation and adaptation. We need to do more to ensure that the developments that come forward for approval are consistent with our net zero goals. I am not necessarily saying that Lords amendment 45 is the right vehicle to deliver that, but if we are to make that huge transition to carbon neutrality, construction and development has an enormous part to play, and significant change needs to be delivered. I hope that the Government will make every effort to ensure that the new NPPF reflects our climate goals, in terms of both mitigation and adaptation.
In particular, as we have heard many times during the debate on the Bill, we must take care in relation to areas prone to flooding since, even if we deliver net zero on time, the climate has already changed to make such episodes more serious and more frequent. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my great sympathy to anyone who has been affected by the floods of recent days. I hope they are back in their homes soon. I truly understand what a miserable experience it is to be subjected to these climatic episodes.
Returning lastly and briefly to the December compromise announced on Report by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), I reiterate what I have said a number of times in this House: we need the compromise to be implemented. The issues raised in new clause 21 on excessive targets have not gone away. Back-Bench concern has not gone away. We are all determined to defend our constituencies from overdevelopment. We believe it is vital to shift the focus of home building to big urban city sites like Old Oak Common, Beckton and central Manchester. The Docklands 2.0 approach outlined by the Secretary of State in his July speech and in his long-term plan for housing reflects our climate commitments by situating people close to jobs, services and public transport systems. It helps to take the pressure off suburban and rural areas, protecting green spaces and the green belt, and supports our ambitions for nature recovery. So, please, let us make sure that that change really happens.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I would like to begin by expressing my disappointment, but not necessarily my surprise, at the unelected other place’s refusal to push for amendments that would protect devolution. Given how unclear, unfocused and unfit for purpose the Bill is, I had hoped the other place would advocate for some revisions to mitigate its impact. I will keep my remarks relatively short. Both amendments do not necessarily relate to Scotland and, unlike the actions of the Conservative Government which would imply otherwise, it is important that we respect the devolution settlement.
Lords amendment 22B sought to allow local councils in England to conduct procedures in a hybrid environment. Throughout the covid emergency, we saw how critical those procedures were in raising participation and in opening meetings to different demographics in society. We saw that virtual meetings can work well in response to challenging circumstances. Actually, we saw that over the last week. The storms that Scotland experienced— England also experienced them—provided a perfect use case for hybrid meetings. It is unlikely that a physical meeting could have taken place in those storm conditions. Hybrid meetings also allow people from different demo-graphics, who historically have been disengaged due to the challenges of getting to and from physical meetings, to participate. If Lords amendment 22B is accepted, it will mean that groups such as lone parents and those with caring responsibilities can engage. I am also concerned that the resistance to hybrid meetings stems from a larger culture war narrative being propagated by out of touch Tories who want to remain in the 1800s. We have seen those culture wars being fought in this very Chamber. It is a disgrace and a disrespect to democracy that my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), if we all remember, was unable to participate remotely in this Chamber after she had a brain haemorrhage. In February 2022, she attended Parliament physically against her doctors’ orders to raise the plight of her constituents, and she continues to attend today. While that is an incredible depiction of her service to her constituents, it is shameful that when solutions such as hybrid meetings exist, we slam the door in their face.
Since the pandemic, Scotland has continued to allow local councils the autonomy to hold hybrid proceedings. It is particularly beneficial for local authorities that cover large geographic areas, allowing those who live far away from council headquarters to access democracy if they so wish. Such measures only increase participation in local democracy. I think we can all agree that that is essential to a healthy democracy.
Lords Amendment 45 relates to climate change duties on planning authorities. Again, the amendment does not cover Scotland. However, with the storm and the harsh weather conditions over the last week, and the likelihood of such once in a generation weather events seeming to happen on such a regular basis, it is imperative that we take the necessary action to tackle climate change.
In this place, we might not necessarily feel the impact of the legislation we pass straightway. As Members, we have a duty towards future generations. Now, I am only 31, so I count myself in one of those future generations. I am not sure that some of my more experienced colleagues can say the same.
One of my favourite quotations is an old Greek proverb which has not been attributed to anyone in particular: “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.” When I think of that quotation, I often think of climate change provisions. The reality is that the planet is on fire, and we are simply not doing enough to help our future generations. We need to pass legislation whose benefits we may not see, but the generations to come will. I appreciate that the Government still recognise the need to tackle climate change with their amendment in lieu, but the measures that it outlines are simply not strong enough. It is important for us not to get into the way of thinking that these are binary choices: it is perfectly possible to construct while maintaining our moral duty to tackle the climate crisis.
The SNP will not be voting on these amendments, but we do hope that our neighbours in England are able to participate in a hybrid system, and engage in local democracy and have the ability to take the climate emergency seriously.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I want to refer specifically to Lords amendment 22B. Part of me wants to be sympathetic towards it, especially after the measured speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). However, I have a concern about the understanding on which it is predicated, namely, that councils do their job properly. Unfortunately I have experience of Soviet Sandwell Council, which does not do its job properly.
I remember the pandemic, and I remember the lack of accountability that we saw when virtual meetings cut out halfway through and the public were seemingly unable to access meetings at which key decisions were being made. It therefore frightens me that we might consider potentially giving a local authority—I am sorry to say this—as corrupt as Sandwell Council any possibility of hiding itself behind virtual meetings. The fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to intervene on this local authority some 12 months ago because of the utter failure in its governance processes is one reason why I hesitate to support the Bill.
I recognise that local authorities broadly can and do get this right, but where it goes horribly wrong, we have seen it and we have lived it, and it terrifies me. Even today, when we are back in physical meetings, let me give Members an example of what might transpire if the amendment were passed. If a monitoring officer fails to advise that a council is in breach of section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003, that effectively allows councillors to vote on a pecuniary matter in which they have an interest, which, as Members will know, is against the law. I believe that this local authority would use the provisions in the amendment to hide itself and mask itself, and to allow even more of the inept and, in fact, borderline corrupt behaviour that we have seen. Unfortunately, officers at a high level—I do not mean all officers, but certainly the officers in the local authority with whom I have dealt—seem quite happy to be complicit in some of that behaviour at times. That is why it would terrify me to allow this amendment to be passed.
The core of the amendment, however, involves accessibility. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) touched on that, and I agree with him: I think we need to get better at accessibility, and to consider broader ways of doing that. Although the amendment may not be passed, I think it has drawn out something that we have to do. Whatever the colour of our Government, we need to get more people into council meetings to talk about their experiences. However, I am terrified by what this amendment would do to my constituents. Effectively, it would allow the authority to mask itself even more.
I have come to one conclusion on this. I think there is a way in which the amendment might work. Sandwell Council is, ultimately, an embarrassment for the Black Country and a stain on local government in the west midlands, and we are undergoing a review of local government in the west midlands at the moment. The only conclusion I can draw is that it is now time to abolish Sandwell Council, and subsume the towns that make it up into other parts. I am thinking particularly of my communities in Tipton and Wednesbury. They need their identity back, but, more important, they need that accountability. It is time for Sandwell to go, because it has been an embarrassment for the last 50 years. It is time to put it in the bin.
I support some of the underlying aims of the Lords amendments, which I think we must take forward. I think we can all agree on that, across the House. However, owing to the experiences I have had for the last four years as a Member of Parliament, this particular mechanism concerns me a great deal, and I can only support it if there is some sort of guarantee that Sandwell Council will be put in the bin.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am going to make some brief comments because I spoke in the debate last week. I reiterate the concerns about this legislation, which has been poorly drafted. Lords amendment 22B would allow councillors to attend meetings virtually or hybrid-style meetings. The amendment is a good opportunity to increase participation in local politics and I think that we should be encouraging it.
For many councillors, the reality of fulfilling their role means working around another full-time job, working late into the evening as well as at weekends, or balancing their parenting commitments, so councillors’ time is under great pressure. Most councillors are in their post purely because of their commitment to their local community, and we should be helping them out by allowing the occasional virtual attendance at a meeting if that reduces the time burden on them. I have heard the argument that our constituents rightly expect us to attend Parliament in person and that elected members of the local council should therefore be expected to do the same, but that argument misses the incredibly important point that, for most people, being a councillor is not a full-time salaried job. To expect them to sacrifice yet more of their time to travel to meetings to offer contributions that could otherwise be made online is simply unfair.
Travel brings me to a particularly pertinent point at the moment. In my constituency and other rural parts of Britain, it is not uncommon for council meetings to be held many miles away from the ward or division that a councillor represents or from where they live. In some cases, that will mean travelling 20 to 50 miles one way to attend a council meeting. Clearly this is a problem in poor weather, as we only have to look at the damage and chaos of the last week to see. It also means that councillors usually have to have their own car, not least because an evening meeting will be held when most bus services have stopped running for the day. That means that people are being excluded from becoming involved in local democracy simply because they do not have access to a car. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was supposed to put greater devolution at its heart and encourage more people into the democratic process. If we really want to engage people in politics and widen representation and access, we should be making it easier for people to represent their communities, not more difficult.
I move briefly on to Lords amendment 45. It is the Liberal Democrats’ view that the original amendment is superior to the Government’s amendment in lieu. It would place duties on the Secretary of State to mitigate and adapt planning policy to reflect climate change. Planning is an integral part of achieving net zero, and as such it is only right that it puts climate considerations at its heart. At the moment, net zero goals are inconsistently applied to planning applications. Local development plans consider climate complications, whereas individual planning applications do not and, without the Government’s amendment in lieu, national development management policies—NDMPs—will not either.
The Lords amendment would extend environmental duties to all aspects of the planning system with a sharpened focus, ensuring that new plans would contribute to specific climate and nature targets. A dual approach is particularly important because climate and ecological decline are closely intertwined, and unfortunately both are accelerating. I do not think that this amendment should be controversial. It is publicly backed by environment businesses, local government and environmental NGOs. The time has run out for looking at climate change simply as an add-on or an afterthought, and given the Government’s recent back-pedalling on their net zero commitments, this should be an easy opportunity to put climate change at the core of the planning process.
Without these Lords amendments, the Bill will miss two key opportunities to encourage local democratic participation and consider climate complications to planning applications. Both these factors are surely at the core of what levelling up should be about.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.
Rachel Maclean
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate today and for their contributions throughout the passage of this important Bill. I will address briefly the points made by Members. First, let me turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). He has spoken with his customary good sense and practical bent, as have others, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), who speaks for the Scottish National party, about the real problems faced by people who wish to take part in local democracy without being excluded because of where they live, because they do not have a car or because of other barriers. This is important, and the whole House recognises those barriers and supports that admirable objective. We need our politics to be as inclusive as possible.
However, I have also heard loud and clear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who alerted us to the problems that could exist if we were to accept Lords amendment 22B. It is right that we consider all the possible consequences, and it is the Government’s view that the amendment goes too far and is too expansive. It would allow any future Government to allow any local authority to meet virtually at every opportunity, which is not something the Government can accept. It is a long-standing principle that local democracy should take place face to face.
I agree with some of the shadow Minister’s comments, and we are looking very carefully at how we encourage more engagement from the community, particularly on planning applications. We can do a lot of that through technology and wider reforms to our system, and it is right that we continue that work.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
What is the Government’s view on how effective such arrangements might be? Is remote working more effective or less effective? Do the Government have a view on that?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that point. He will know that, with this Bill, we are pushing power down to local people, local areas and local councillors, who are elected to represent their communities. As I said, the Government have a very clear view that local democracy should take place face to face. Through our levelling-up work, we are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation devolution of power to allow local areas, such as the one he represents, to make the best decisions for their local communities, notwithstanding this particular point, on which the Government have strong views.
The vital issue of climate change was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). It is important to stress that the planning system already has considerable systems for taking account of climate change and further work is under way, as my hon. Friend knows. He specifically asked about how to bridge the gap in planning policy. I make it clear that, as part of our proposed changes to the planning system and as we committed to in the net zero strategy, we were the first Government to legislate for net zero. We stand by those commitments both in the planning system and elsewhere, and we intend to do a fuller review of the national planning policy framework to ensure it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible, following Royal Assent of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
Last but by no means least, I turn to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. She reiterated what is a vital issue: the Government’s commitment to publishing the response to the NPPF consultation after this Bill, with Godspeed, receives Royal Assent. We remain committed to doing that, and I reiterate that it remains the Government’s policy to ensure that we identify and build on urban brownfield areas such as the ones she mentioned in Docklands, Beckton, Silvertown and elsewhere. We need to see housing delivered there. We have seen 30-year record highs in housing delivery under this Conservative Government, and we intend to continue delivering the right houses in the right places, supported by local communities. I want to take this brief opportunity to put on record, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet did, my thanks to councillors who represent my communities in Redditch, Wychavon and Worcestershire, and to all the frontline services involved in the responses to the floods—to the emergency services, the Environment Agency and others. We all wish everybody to be back in their home soon.
I hope that all Members, having seen that the Government have listened and responded to their concerns, will feel able to support our position. Our amendments are effective and proportionate, and I hope that they are agreeable to all. I commend them to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22B.
Correcting the Record
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move,
That this House approves the Fourth Report of the Procedure Committee, Correcting the record, HC 521.
It is a pleasure to open this debate on proposals put forward by the Procedure Committee in its fourth report of this Session. I would like to thank the Committee and its Chairman for their work on this important matter. The House is being asked to consider the expansion of the formal ministerial corrections process to all MPs. It is an important principle that all Members of the House—be they Ministers of the Crown, Members of the official Opposition, or Back-Bench Members—adhere to high standards of accountability and openness. We have a similar responsibility to provide accurate information.
The obligation on Ministers is to ensure the information that they provide to Parliament is accurate, as set out in the ministerial code and the House’s 1997 resolution on ministerial accountability, and Ministers take that obligation very seriously. The current system for ministerial corrections is well established following the House’s approval of the 2007 Procedure Committee report on the subject, and the Government believe that the process relating to Ministers’ corrections is generally effective. The lack of a formal mechanism for Members of the official Opposition and Back-Bench MPs, however, means that there is no clear way of identifying a correction given and linking it to the original statement, and the public should not have to work their way through Hansard before finding that correction. The Government therefore welcome the proposed expansion of the formal corrections process, and believe that this change would improve the clarity and transparency of corrections.
In addition, the Government agree with the Procedure Committee in its assessment that the existing procedural mechanisms for challenging the accuracy of contributions made in the House are sufficient. The House is also asked to endorse further recommendations from the Committee regarding the visibility and accessibility of corrections, which are that cross-referenced hyperlinks provided in the Official Report should be improved; that cross-referenced hyperlinks currently used in the ministerial corrections system should also be added to the corrections made through points of order and other oral contributions; and that corrections should be easier to access through the creation of a central corrections page.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
What procedure does the Minister envisage being used where a non-Minister misleads the House or gives incorrect information, and declines to correct the record?
Penny Mordaunt
All these matters are matters for the House. We asked the Procedure Committee to consider these matters and bring forward recommendations to the House, but it is very clear that we have a code of conduct. Often, if a Member has not adhered to their obligations to this House, points are raised through the Chair; however, it is ultimately for the House to decide what sanction it provides to individuals who do not adhere to the rules that we ourselves create in this place.
The Government’s priority is that the process ensures transparency and that the visibility of corrections made to the Official Report is sufficient. Should the House agree with the Committee’s recommendations to further improve the transparency of corrections, that would, of course, be a positive step. Trust and confidence in our democracy and its institutions are vital, and it is therefore important that we have clear and transparent processes when MPs make inadvertent errors. I hope that these measures carry the support of Members, and I commend the motion to the House.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I put on record my thanks to the Procedure Committee for its report on correcting the record, and to all those inside and outside the House who contributed to that report. Any strengthening of transparency and accountability for Members is welcome, as are steps to make this easier to understand and contextualise.
When speaking to the House of Commons, Members are expected to tell the truth to the best of their knowledge. If they identify an error in something they have said to the House, they are obliged to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. Since 2007, we have had a system in place for ministerial corrections to be linked to the Minister’s original error, and it is right that the Procedure Committee looked at the effectiveness of that system and how it can be extended to Back-Bench and Opposition Members. We can see from the Committee’s report that ministerial corrections reached a high point in the 2019-21 Session, and that during this Session, Ministers have corrected the record 1.5 times a day. The Committee also received evidence from a number of sources—including Members from across the House, Full Fact, and the Constitution Unit—about their concerns that there are currently few effective mechanisms for challenging inaccurate statements made by Ministers and, indeed, other Members. However, recommendations were not made to that end.
It is ironic that we are discussing transparency, as it has emerged that the Government published 160 transparency documents on by-election day last Thursday. That is the highest single total for more than three years, beating the previous record of 130 documents published on the day that three by-elections were held in July. Data in this dump, but unable to be reported because broadcast media were unable to do so during the by-elections, included the news that 42 hospitals and 43 additional schools have been identified with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and details relating to the Prime Minister’s spending on flights.
In conclusion, we support this motion. The current system can be opaque for Members and members of the public, and bringing corrections together in one place will make these more accessible and transparent.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
One of the reasons why I became an MP was to serve those I represent. Having been proudly elected in 2019, it is increasingly clear to me that it is incumbent on all of us in this place to improve the covenant between Parliament and our constituents by ensuring that what we do as public servants is as transparent, credible and authentic as it can be. It therefore gives me pleasure to commend this motion to the House, and I am honoured to speak on behalf of the Procedure Committee.
I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward this work, and for making time for the House to debate our recommendations. I am grateful, too, for the support of the shadow Leader of the House. The House is always at its best when we come together with a common purpose. I would also like to commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) for her excellent leadership of the Procedure Committee—regrettably, she cannot be here today—and her superb team, including Richard Ward, Ffion Morgan and Margaret McKinnon, all of whom have contributed significantly to this work.
What we say in this place matters, and it must be accurate. Constituents place their trust in us to do and say the right thing on their behalf, and we have a responsibility to set a high bar for how we conduct ourselves.
Sir Greg Knight
I congratulate my hon. Friend and other members of the Procedure Committee on this excellent report. Is there not a case, when a Member or Minister corrects the record, for stating in that correction how many times in the same Session of Parliament that person has had to correct the record previously, so that we can easily identify anyone who is being rather cavalier with the truth?
James Sunderland
I agree with the thrust of what my right hon. Friend is saying, and I will come on to that in due course. However, what is important is that the record that is going to be available at a single point on a website will make it possible, very quickly and easily, to work out who perhaps has a record in this particular area.
What we say in this place matters and must be accurate. Sadly, it is inevitable that mistakes sometimes happen, but it is what we do about it that matters. It should be routine for adjustments to be made where a Member has given incorrect information and needs to correct the record.
The motion, in effect, enshrines three improvements in procedure. First, it means that all MPs will be able to correct the record, not just Ministers. While it will not compel Members to do so, due to parliamentary privilege, it will provide the means for it to be done. Secondly, the visibility of any corrections will be improved in the official record. The exact mechanism for this is being worked through, but it will be obvious in Hansard where corrections have been made.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I very much support the Procedure Committee’s report. As part of the next stage of looking at the detail, has the Committee considered whether, when we talk about correcting the record “at the earliest opportunity”, that will be part of what is published when the correction is made?
James Sunderland
The technical detail of how this will work is yet to be thrashed out, but I have no doubt it will be subject to further work between the Procedure Committee and the House authorities.
As I have said, the visibility of any corrections will be improved in the official record and the exact mechanism for that is being worked through. It is, for example, possible that the format of cross-referenced hyperlinks in Hansard will be improved so that they are much clearer, whether in relation to a point of order or through other oral contributions. Thirdly, there will also be an easily accessible corrections page, probably on the parliamentary website, and linked elsewhere, where anyone will be able to see a bespoke record of parliamentary corrections.
While we believe that existing mechanisms to challenge the accuracy of contributions made in the House are sufficient, and that understanding those mechanisms can assist Members in effectively and creatively challenging accuracy, these improvements are necessary. Importantly, the Procedure Committee does not believe that distinction between Ministers and non-Ministers justifies any difference in the means by which Back Benchers may seek to correct themselves when they discover that they have made an error. We have therefore concluded that the rules should apply equally to all MPs.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I am supportive of the Procedure Committee’s report, and I wonder if I could pick up on the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington—[Interruption.] I apologise. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight)—I will correct the record. If a Back Bencher chose not to correct the record when they were made aware of something, would the Procedure Committee consider that that may be a contempt, and as a consequence of not correcting the record, would there be a referral to the Committee of Privileges?
James Sunderland
The Procedure Committee considered that issue carefully, and we concluded that the existing procedural mechanisms to challenge the accuracy of contributions made in the House are sufficient. It is difficult to compel any Member to do anything, but we hope that with the new improvements to the process, Members may be feel obliged to do so.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
For the sake of clarity, I take it that the position the Committee has adopted is that if the House feels that an individual Back Bencher has misled it, that is one thing, but it cannot compel that Back Bencher to withdraw anything if that Back Bencher feels that they have not in fact misled the House.
James Sunderland
My understanding is the same. It is difficult to compel any Member to do what he or she does not want to do, but as the Leader of the House said earlier, this is a matter for the House. It may be that a track record of poor behaviour may attract further attention from the House authorities and the House itself.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is doing a sterling job of reporting from the Procedure Committee. Pulling some of the threads and discussion together, would it be appropriate for the Procedure Committee to look at publishing, perhaps in the form of a written statement and possibly at the end of term, a list of people who have offended?
James Sunderland
I think that is a very fair point, and if I may, I will report that back to the Committee. It may well be subject to further work, but a termly report could be a good way forward. It should be obvious in Hansard and on the corrections page where people have offended, and whether or not they have corrected the record.
In conclusion, the Procedure Committee recommends that the system of ministerial corrections be extended to all Members, and that the corrections should adhere to the same rules as set in the ministerial corrections system. We are pleased that the Leader of the House is supportive of our recommendations, and we hope that the House will agree to them today. If it does, Hansard will begin work with the parliamentary digital service to bring those changes in. It will take time.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
There is probably no more suitable Member of this House to report back from the Procedure Committee than one who knows well the importance of integrity from his time serving in the Army. Could the measure that we are hearing about deal with the sort of campaigning that we saw ahead of the last election, when sometimes false statements were made deliberately so as to lead to denial and repetition?
James Sunderland
I thank the hon. Member for his kind remarks. I have a problem, as I am sure we all do, with falsehoods and false statements, and it is incumbent on all of us in this place to make sure that we are accurate with our facts and not disingenuous with how we use them. I acknowledge his remarks and agree with them. Again, we will put to the Committee in due course how we take that forward. Finally, we will work also with the House administration, which will write to the Committee in the coming weeks with a timeline for implementation.
Honesty, transparency and credibility in politics do matter, as we have heard, and this proposal is the right thing to do for everyone whom we serve. I therefore commend this report to the House.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I echo the comments of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), in welcoming this report and the work of the Procedure Committee, its members and its Clerks, and that is not just because I am a former member of that Committee who was serving on it when this inquiry started. That is purely coincidental.
With these changes, we are effectively creating a level playing field. Ministers currently have the ability to issue corrections, but other Members do not. The process if a Member realised that they had misspoken in the House was rather cumbersome. The Member made a point of order to draw attention to the fact that they had misspoken. That is then not in any way linked or joined up to the comment that they originally made, which stands in Hansard. Putting in place these changes makes a lot of sense for openness and transparency and making it easier for members of the public to find their way around the comments that have been made.
It is easy at times to get carried away by what we mean when we say “correcting the record”. It could be something as simple as what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) mentioned in a debate yesterday in Westminster Hall on honesty in politics; it could be as simple as someone saying “billions” instead of “millions”. That is the sort of thing we could be talking about, albeit we all know there are situations where it is taken significantly further than that. We have seen now former Members of the House perhaps almost doing it deliberately.
On a lack of willingness to correct the record, that probably does need a bit more work, but that is not a matter for today or this situation. But we need to look at that. If there are persistent offenders who simply refuse to acknowledge when mistakes have been made, a system is being put in place that makes this very straightforward. That will warrant further attention. It is in all our interests to get this right. Openness and transparency and honesty in politics are what our constituents expect. It is the very least they can expect from all of us, and it is incumbent on us all to make sure that we can find mechanisms, where appropriate, to make that as easy as possible. For most of us, it would be a genuine mistake—an accidental misspeak—and something that, if this proposal is agreed, will be easily corrected.
I look forward to seeing how this proposal can work in practice when the Committee goes off to work with digital services to implement it. I look forward to what comes next.
Penny Mordaunt
First, may I thank again the Procedure Committee, its Chairman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who stepped into her shoes today, for all the work they have done on this? All Members who have contributed this afternoon have given the matter careful consideration. I am glad that this report is very much welcome.
I will pick up on a couple of points that have been made. The first is that it is difficult to give this House statistics about how many deliberate misleading statements have been made by non-ministerial colleagues versus simple errors, because there is not currently a central corrections page where we can go and look at those things. But I am going to stick my neck out here, and hope I will not have to correct the record, and say that I think most errors that are made are just that—errors by Members of this House. I think that all Members generally come to this Chamber wanting to get the facts on record and have a genuine debate. I hope that, when the central corrections page is up and running, we will be able to see that. Of course this is in relation to things that are said to this House in this Chamber.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Has any thought been given to protections? If we are to publish these lists, there may be fast-moving debates, such as we had during the pandemic, where a Member could willingly state one piece of information and find out that it is incorrect because the science has moved on quickly. Creating a public list of those people ranked as making the most mistakes could inadvertently lead to attention or possibly even abuse of those people. Are there any protections for Members who find themselves on top of that list?
Penny Mordaunt
The Procedure Committee has thought carefully about that and distinguishes between things that, all things being equal, are incorrect and were factually incorrect at the time. Clearly, during the pandemic, science information was developing. This is not about rewriting what has been said in a different context or going back on that. The report is clear that this is simply about facts that at the time were not correct or misled the House. It just relates to things that are said in here. I note what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) said. Bar charts on Liberal Democrat leaflets are not covered by this set of rules. [Laughter.]
A couple of hon. Members raised the point that this is about the House holding itself to account. These rules and procedures are here for the benefit of all Members. The Procedure Committee looked at whether this would require an enhanced role for the Speaker but very much felt that that was not what was required. There are existing mechanisms—points of order and other ways—by which people can raise their concerns. I thank again the Procedure Committee and all Members. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Petitions
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
This is a petition of the residents of the United Kingdom, and there are 474 signatures to the petition in similar terms. The petitioners say that Bescot Stadium station served over 90,000 passengers between 2021 and 2022, that passengers can access the platforms only via stairs to a footbridge and there is no accessible route from the platforms to the station car park, other than by stairs. The petitioners say that Perry Barr and Witton stations on the same line have been upgraded for the Commonwealth Games, making them accessible. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to recognise the need for lifts at Bescot Stadium Station to make it accessible and to work with the appropriate body such as Network Rail.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Bescot Stadium Station is used by travellers with disabilities and travellers with prams; notes that the Bescot Stadium Station served over 90,000 passengers between 2021 and 2022; further declares that passengers can only access the platforms via stairs to a footbridge without any accessible route from the platforms to the station car park other than the stairs; declares that Perry Barr and Witton Station, on the same line, have been upgraded for the Commonwealth Games making them accessible.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to recognise the need for lifts at Bescot Stadium Station to make it accessible and to work with the appropriate body such as Network Rail.]
[P002863]
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Witney and West Oxfordshire, who have grave concerns about the Botley West solar farm proposals. We all accept the critical importance of increasing domestic energy production and reducing emissions. Renewables must be at the heart of that, but that does not mean that there can be carte blanche to develop huge greenfield sites, which would have a negative impact on both our countryside and the character of local areas.
The construction of solar farms on fertile farmland should not be a first resort. The proposals risk losing vast swathes of iconic open countryside that is vital for local amenity and rich in biodiversity. We must pursue decarbonisation, but not in a way that is destructive to our natural environment. I have engaged closely with local residents on this matter and I have run a similar petition online to the one I am submitting, which has received 2,022 signatures.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject the application when it is presented and immediately update the National Planning Policy Framework to give clearer, stricter guidance on the appropriate location, scale and design of solar farms, including the definition to be used when sites are declared to be ‘temporary’, furthermore that this updated guidance give weight to factors such as the preservation of farmland for food security, local amenity, overall scale and impact upon the local community, rural character and green belt preservation.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Witney and West Oxfordshire,
Declares that the large scale solar farm application known as "Botley West Solar Farm" is detrimental to the local community, notes that its scale and design are incompatible with the current infrastructure of the area; further declares that preservation of farmland for food security, local amenity, rural character and green belt preservation must take precedence when considering solar farm applications.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject the application when it is presented and immediately update the National Planning Policy Framework to give clearer, stricter guidance on the appropriate location, scale and design of solar farm including the definition to be used when sites are declared to be "temporary", furthermore that this updated guidance give weight to factors such as the preservation of farmland for food security, local amenity, overall scale and impact upon the local community, rural character and green belt preservation.]
[P002866]
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I rise to present a petition of 723 of my constituents in North Devon, in which they ask the House of Commons to urge the Government to assist with emergency dental provision in North Devon. Alongside online signatories, more than 1,750 of my constituents have signed, due to their inability to see a dentist. The Government are bringing in long-term changes to increase our dentistry workforce, but North Devon needs dentists now, so that children can set up positive dental habits, teenagers can have their braces taken off and adults can go about their daily lives without worsening tooth pain. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to assist with emergency dental provision in North Devon.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of North Devon,
Declares that the sustained lack of dental provision in North Devon has led to critical reduction in health outcomes; notes that access to dental services has worsened since the pandemic and despite ongoing from government ministers, the NHS, the County Council and Integrated Care Board the situation continues to get worse, not better; further declares that to ensure that the people of North Devon's health is not negatively affected any further, concrete steps need to be taken now to bring more dental provision our constituency.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to assist with emergency dental provision in North Devon.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002867]
Cost of Energy: Dalmarnock
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
For those unfamiliar with the Dalmarnock neighbourhood in my constituency, it is located in the east end of Glasgow, between the River Clyde and Celtic Park. People there are generous, kind and welcoming. It has been an absolute pleasure to represent them, first, as a councillor and now as an MP for the past 16 years. Dalmarnock has seen a lot of change over the years, as heavy industry has declined and the population has moved away to the new towns. In more recent years, it has seen significant regeneration from the Clyde Gateway—I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as the unpaid chair of Clyde Gateway—and it was host to the world as the site of the Commonwealth games village.
I will speak first to the wider picture that people face. Over the past two years, families right across Glasgow and Scotland have struggled with soaring energy prices. While France implemented a price tariff shield on electricity and gas, the UK Government took more limited measures, which have left many people struggling to keep their homes warm and pay their bills. Inflation related to Brexit and the disastrous mini-Budget also increased the cost of food on our shelves. The energy price cap brought in by the UK Government was welcome, but prices remain significantly higher than they were prior to the war in Ukraine.
Last year’s energy bill support scheme, which, again, we in the Scottish National party welcomed, was supposed to give every household a £400 discount on their energy bills from winter 2022 to March 2023. I recall very well the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the time not understanding exactly how a prepayment meter worked. That speaks to some of the issues that have happened with the scheme. There were many people whom it did not reach. We feel that the crisis has not gone away. We are calling for a further round of an energy bill support scheme with a £400 rebate this winter, because the crisis has not gone away and people are still struggling.
On some of the issues we faced in administering the scheme through the casework I had in my office, these things ought to be addressed in any future scheme to ensure that everyone gets what they are entitled to. In many cases, people did not even realise they had received the vouchers, because they had been automatically applied to their smart meter and the cost had gone up so dramatically that they did not feel the difference. It was so hard to do the various checks and to go back to people and explain that they just were not entitled to any further support. To make matters worse, it was estimated that more than 13,000 energy bill support scheme vouchers went unclaimed in Glasgow Central, including for residents in Dalmarnock. The vouchers for constituents with prepayment meters were so important because, disproportionately, they are both on lower incomes and charged higher prices for the energy that they consume.
The energy support schemes of the future should be targeted at those who need it most. A flat scheme across the board, regardless of need, is not progressive in any way and does not support those with larger families or people with disabilities who need the heating on for longer periods. I am concerned that so many people did not receive the support to which they were entitled, which raises serious questions about the efficacy of the scheme. That money should have been in the meters of my constituents, not the coffers of the UK Treasury. I would like to ask the Minister how energy firms are being held to account for the vouchers that did not reach their customers, because in many cases they know exactly who those customers are. What review are the UK Government doing of the effectiveness of the scheme that they created and forced on companies at short notice? From speaking to the companies, I know that they found the scheme difficult to administer at times. It is clear that there are complexities in our energy system. Complexity of supply and market failure is resulting in limited choice, and very varied and poorly insulated housing stock, in the UK as a whole and even in individual neighbourhoods such as Dalmarnock.
People in Dalmarnock have been affected more acutely by the cost of living crisis than the general population of Glasgow, or than people more widely in Scotland. Dalmarnock is exactly the sort of community that the UK Government should have in mind when constructing an energy support scheme. As Understanding Glasgow’s Glasgow Indicators Project stated:
“Estimates of male and female life expectancy in Parkhead and Dalmarnock are lower than the Glasgow average. Single parent households make up 61% of all households with dependent children. The rate of claiming unemployment and disability related benefits is higher than the Glasgow average. Levels of deprivation and child poverty are also significantly higher than average. Thirty-two per cent of the population are limited by a disability.”
If the scheme does not work for Dalmarnock, it does not work anywhere.
Dalmarnock also contains a real mix of housing types, from the traditional sandstone tenements we think of when we think of Glasgow, to interwar tenements, four-in-a-block homes, terraces, houses built in the 1980s and the 1990s, the Commonwealth games Athletes’ Village, and brand new flats built to Passivhaus standard. Dalmarnock is also home to a significant population of Showpeople, whose chalets and caravans come in all shapes and sizes. The energy supply is just as varied; it ranges from traditional gas boiler and storage heaters, to a district heating scheme and rooftop solar in the games village, and a communal boiler in the new Riverside Dalmarnock development.
I was aware from my casework of the many challenges my constituents faced with their energy costs, so I went out to conduct a survey in Dalmarnock to get a better picture of what was going on and what additional support might be required. The results were heartbreaking. Where my team and I have been able to assist people, we have done so, yet much more is required on a UK structural level to tackle the issues my constituents face. The survey was conducted in the period after the energy bills support scheme closed. We surveyed over 1,000 people in the Dalmarnock area, and received a response rate of around 10%. Respondents were from right across different housing types, so results showed the breadth of people’s experience with this issue. Replies are still coming in.
We asked about housing type and tenure, energy supplier, the proportion of income people were spending on their bills, and how much that had gone up in the past year. We also asked people about dampness and condensation in their home. Many reported regularly running out of credit on their prepayment meters, and having had prepayment meters forced on them because they were in debt.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for taking my intervention. I wanted to come in earlier on prepayment meters, but I was very keen to listen to what else she was saying. Despite the fact that Ofgem has, for the moment, stopped energy companies from being able to force prepayment meters on people, and despite the fact that the Courts and Tribunals Service stopped that happening in England and Wales, Scottish Power applied, I think in the last week, for over 100 such meters to be installed, and got the warrants. Does she agree that it can be doing that for only one reason, which is to intimidate people who are struggling to pay their bills?
Alison Thewliss
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for all the work she has done to highlight the issues facing people on prepayment meters. That is an absolutely brutal way to go about your business: forcing your way into people’s homes, forcing people to take prepayment meters, and then clawing back money off them that they could have used to heat their house, rather than to service a debt caused by soaring energy prices. The energy companies have made significant profits out of these people—profits that really have not been earned through anything that the companies have done, but that have resulted from global circumstances. People in our constituencies in Glasgow are paying the real price for that, living in cold, dark flats through the depths of winter.
A woman wrote to me who lives in a new-build flat. She is in debt now. She works full time, but has had to ask for payment holidays on her credit cards and other loans. She is not the type of person who gets into this situation. She said:
“I have had to cut my food shop. I live now on soup and sandwiches. I don’t put my heating on unless it’s freezing. I don’t have any disposable income now and I’m contemplating giving up my car”.
The impact of these high bills on whether people can afford to eat properly is stark. Another woman reported:
“I can’t cook during the day on weekdays. I can only cook at night or weekends in order to save energy and money. I can’t cook my local or native food because it takes longer to cook. We eat more junk foods which is not healthy for us.”
People recognise that this is causing them harm, but there is really nothing that they can do about it. A gentleman who has diabetes reported to me that he goes to bed early, he feels cold all the time, and his diet is not good owing to money concerns. Another woman told us:
“I was worried about accidentally running hot water as it would cost so much. I refused to have friends or family around because I was embarrassed to be living like that.”
Even those in new-build houses are struggling, with one constituent reporting that the house ventilation system in her new home cost 15p a day in 2015, and now costs £1 a day, which is a 600% increase. As a result, she opts to use it only when the condensation starts to build up, and after mould has appeared on the windowsills. That is no way for people to live, but they simply do not have the money to make ends meet. Another constituent reported that the price of her gas and electricity had risen from £72 to £184 a month. The family are supported through universal credit, and there is no means of getting extra money in. I do not understand how this Government expect people to live.
The survey asked people who were not comfortable putting the heating on what alternative methods they used to get warm. Some said that they would not even boil the kettle for a cup of tea, while others, including a pensioner couple, reported going to bed early to stay warm. Many respondents said that the cost of energy bills had caused them stress or other adverse mental health issues. Some had physical health issues such as fibromyalgia, anaemia or even cancer, which they felt could be alleviated by a warm environment in their homes. It is even more worrying that so many—including the constituent whom I mentioned earlier—reported damp and mould in their home, which is a risk factor for future respiratory problems. One said that they had to paint rooms twice over the last year, to cover up damp patches.
I am aware that housing associations in the area are worried about the impact on their tenants and housing stock in the long term. Although they had some money to distribute to their tenants through the Scottish Government’s social housing fuel support fund, that does not fix the systemic issues, which are reserved to Westminster. One of those systemic issues is the regulation of heat networks—an issue that has affected people in the Riverside Dalmarnock development. In January this year, those residents, whose heating is supplied by a communal boiler system operated by the company Switch2, received a notice informing them that the price of a kilowatt-hour of gas was increasing from 12p to 33p. That has had a serious impact on many residents, a number of whom have disabilities, because the development was sold to them on the basis that it was accessible and affordable. One resident reported no longer using gas and washing in cold water; electricity was okay, but Switch2 had increased the cost of heating to unrealistic levels, and the resident could not afford hot water. The price of gas had risen from between £40 and £55 to £160 for the same usage.
In the post-covid “working from home” environment, some people are weighting up the cost of transport versus the cost of energy. One of my constituents said:
“If I work from home my home bills go up and my employer saves. But if I commute to work I need a car and fuel costs a lot too. I don’t have a choice and just have to foot the bill. I can’t default as it will affect my job.”
These constituents do not have alternative options for heating. The homes in that development are not equipped with traditional boilers, and cannot be supplied with heating in any way other than via the communal heat network. Switch2, for its part, purchases direct from energy providers and passes the cost on to its customers. The issue with the lack of regulation and support is not really of its making.
For those on communal and district heating, the energy bill relief scheme failed to provide the support that other energy customers across the UK managed to get, and the energy price guarantee does not apply to homes on heat networks. The regulation of heat networks remains forthcoming; plans for that were set out in the Government’s Energy Bill, but those plans are unlikely to be implemented before the winter. These constituents cannot wait. They cannot live in fear of prices going up still further. They need real support with their energy bills now, not after the situation has worsened. Can the Minister confirm the date on which those regulations will be put in place? May I also ask her what assurances can be given to those who are on heat networks? At what rate will the price be fixed when the regulations come into force? Will it be the rate that customers pay now, or the rate that they will be paying at that time? The prices may have gone up again by then. What information will they receive about the implications of these new regulations?
I would like to make a few points about business customers, because there is a relevance to them, too. A large employer in the east end came to me despairing that they could not cope with the price increase that they faced; they worried that they would not be able to keep their staff. They strained every sinew to keep their loyal staff during the pandemic, and they want to do right by them now. They felt thoroughly unsupported by the Government and, like many businesses, they are now marooned on a very high tariff, which they will be stuck with until it comes up for renegotiation. What more is the Minister doing, in conjunction with the regulator and suppliers, to tackle the patent unfairness of some businesses being stuck on a high tariff and struggling to pay their staff, while other businesses have a much better deal? There has also been scant support from the UK Government for the third sector. It should be a real source of shame that the churches and community centres that provide some of the most valuable support for vulnerable people also face these kinds of contracts, and have had to consider closing their doors because of the price of energy.
There is a further complexity for a particular group of business customers in my constituency—those who operate the Showpeople’s yards that I mentioned earlier. One of my constituents operates several yards and cannot get an explanation from his supplier, Scottish Power, as to why he is on different rates for different yards in the same street. He has had to pass the costs on to the tenants, and they too are struggling to understand the disparity. His costs have also gone up dramatically, as everyone else’s have. For example, he is paying three times as much for gas and electricity, which has gone from 17p per kW and a 28p standing charge to 56p per kW and an 81p standard charge. He has also struggled to get support, in common with others known as park home residents.
I received an email this week, by coincidence, from an organisation called Charis, which is administrating a warm home discount scheme for park home residents, but as it is benefit-dependent and targeted towards a group of people who traditionally do not claim benefits and are self-employed, I would question whether this scheme will really reach those who desperately need it right now. They have already waited a considerable time for this help to come. I ask the Minister to consider what more can be done for this group of people. On a technical point, how she will monitor the uptake of schemes such as this?
Temperatures in Scotland have already started to drop. It was 0° with frost on the ground in Glasgow on Monday morning this week, and there is the prospect of further chills. The Minister cannot wait—and my constituents cannot wait—for the freezing temperatures to hit the south-east of England before she takes further action on this. In Scotland, we are doing what we can in a grim situation. The Scottish Government have invested in social housing, and they introduced the energy efficiency standard for social housing in 2014. As a result, homes in the social rented sector are now some of the most energy-efficient in Scotland, with 85% achieving level D or above on their energy performance certificate. We are working hard to tackle fuel poverty, but responsibility for the structural issues and the cost of energy, which affect our constituents, does not lie with us; it lies in this place, and it is for this Government to try to fix them.
Today’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation figures on destitution in the UK make for utterly grim reading, but they find that the actions the Scottish Government are taking, such as the Scottish child payment, mean that
“Scotland has improved its position to lie below the GB average, having experienced by far the lowest increase since 2019.”
But these are just a few glimmers of light when energy and food prices are driving 3.8 million people across the UK into destitution.
It is beyond comprehension to me that people can be shivering this winter in energy-rich Scotland. It does not have to be this way. Independent Ireland will invest some of its budget surplus into energy support to see people through the winter. I urge the Minister, who I know is very keen to help, to do what she can to support people in Dalmarnock, in Glasgow and in the rest of Scotland with their energy costs. We face particular challenges. It is colder and people need that support. We need to reform the market to make it fair for the customers, not the shareholders. The will to change does not come from Westminster; it will come from an independent Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
Let me begin by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for tabling this incredibly important debate on the cost of energy in Dalmarnock. She makes a strong case for her constituents and, as the Minister for affordability, I am mindful of the issues that she raises. That is why the Government spent nearly £40 billion protecting households and businesses from spiralling energy bills last winter. That included robust support for households, covering around half of a typical energy bill last winter through the combined support since October 2022 of the energy price guarantee and the energy bills support scheme, with a typical household saving around £1,500 by the end of June 2023. The energy price guarantee subsidised the per unit cost that a household could be charged for its gas and electricity usage. The typical household was therefore paying £2,500 a year for its energy when prices were at their highest, between October 2022 and June 2023.
To put that in context, the Ofgem price cap reached £4,279 for quarter 1 of 2023, which is what a typical household would have paid for its energy had the Government not intervened. Alongside the EPG, the energy bills support scheme delivered a £400 non-repayable Government discount on electricity bills to help 28 million households in Great Britain.
The hon. Lady mentioned the difficulties some people in her constituency faced in accessing energy support last winter, particularly those who were unable to be reached automatically. The EBSS alternative funding was available to over 900,000 households in Great Britain that did not have a domestic electricity supply and were not eligible to receive support automatically through EBSS, providing them with £400 to support them with their energy bills. I note the comments from the survey, and I am very interested, as we discussed before, to see the results of that survey.
The scheme remained open for three months from 27 February to 31 May, and the Government used a range of methods to ensure that as many eligible households as possible knew that they could apply. That included press notices to highlight the scheme in national and regional media, and a request for local authorities to write to care homes and park homes in their area.
The alternative fuel payment scheme delivered £200 to households that use alternative fuels such as heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas, coal or biomass, helping around 2 million off-gas-grid households to meet their energy costs last winter. The scheme particularly supported households in areas that are not connected to the gas grid, and support was doubled to £200 in the autumn statement to reflect the price rises experienced by people using alternative fuels to heat their home.
Only last week, my Department published figures showing that over £24 million had been spent on EBSS and AFP support in Glasgow Central, where the district of Dalmarnock is located. That is just two schemes and does not include the significant support provided through the EPG. In total, the Government spent around £1.2 billion to support households in Scotland.
The Government have welcomed recent reductions in household energy bills. The energy price cap for quarter 4 of this year has been set at £1,834, which is significantly down from the £4,279 at the start of the year. The energy price guarantee will remain in place until March 2024, providing a safety net for consumers should energy prices spike unexpectedly by limiting the amount that suppliers can charge per unit of gas or electricity.
Additional support has been delivered through the welfare system for the most vulnerable households, with eligible households receiving a £900 cost of living payment during 2023-24. This is an increase from the £650 such households received the previous year. The Government will continue to provide targeted support for the most vulnerable, with 3 million households across Great Britain expected to benefit from the £150 warm home discount this winter. Eligible households will also receive the winter fuel payment, worth between £250 and £600, and the cold weather payment that provides £25 during very cold weather.
As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, fuel poverty is a devolved policy. We have responsibility for England, but it is right that we note the work that the Scottish Government are doing in this space and the lessons learned. Multiple schemes have been set up, including the winter heating payment, the home heating support fund and the child winter heating assistance scheme, to help reduce fuel poverty specifically in Scotland. As set out in the autumn statement, we are exploring the best approach to consumer protection as part of wider retail market reforms.
We welcome Ofgem’s new rules for energy suppliers, which will ensure that all energy customers get the good service they deserve. Suppliers will now be required to prioritise vulnerable customers when they request help, offer timely repayment plans for those struggling with bills, and make customer ratings easy to find on their websites.
In the longer term, improving energy efficiency will be key to tackling fuel poverty, contributing to the long-term reduction of energy bills, and reaching net zero. In addition to the £6.6 billion allocated in this Parliament, £6 billion of new funding will be made available from 2025 to 2028.
The Government have also extended the energy company obligation—ECO—from 2022 to 2026 and expanded it to a total of £4 billion to accelerate efforts to improve homes and meet fuel poverty targets, and £1 billion has been committed through the Great British insulation scheme, which will improve more than 300,000 of Great Britain’s least energy-efficient homes.
The Government’s vision for the energy retail market is one that works better for consumers, is more resilient and investable, and supports the transformation of our energy system. Much remains to be done to deliver our vision. That is why we are pursuing further targeted reforms, which will set us on a path to unlocking competition, investment and innovation, and helping the energy market to achieve net zero while protecting the most vulnerable.
The hon. Member mentioned talking to suppliers. I assure her that I talk to suppliers and other stakeholders, such as Citizens Advice, on an ongoing basis. It is important to have those conversations.
We are also looking to provide protection to those using heat networks, including people in Dalmarnock. Subject to the passage of the Energy Bill, heat network customers in Scotland will be protected by UK-wide consumer protection legislation, as well as the regulatory framework established by the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021.
The Government will closely monitor energy prices and keep energy support schemes under review, as well as provide longer-term support to keep energy bills more affordable for all. One of the schemes that we are considering is the “It All Adds Up” campaign, which I encourage the hon. Member to support. We are trying to encourage households to look at where they can make further savings.
I am planning to visit Scotland in the near future, and I welcome the opportunity to engage more closely on this issue.
I sincerely thank the hon. Member for introducing this important debate and for all her efforts to ensure that her constituents are fully supported.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the people (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I am most grateful to members of the Committee for being here. This Government are committed to protecting the integrity of our democratic process, and we have delivered on that commitment. Last year, Parliament passed the Elections Act 2022, which includes changes to ensure that UK elections remain secure, fair and modern. I am glad to introduce today a statutory instrument that flows directly from that Act. This debate follows the passing by Parliament of an equivalent instrument for Great Britain. The regulations were approved last week in the other place. Taken together, this instrument and the instrument for GB provide a single package of measures covering non-devolved local elections in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That means that, in practice, these measures will apply to both local council elections and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland.
The Elections Act amended the franchise to reflect the UK’s new relationship with the EU and to protect the rights of UK citizens living in EU countries. That moved us to the principle of a mutual grant of rights through agreement with individual EU member states. Before I address the detail of the provisions, I will make it clear that 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.
The Elections Act provides that two groups of citizens from other EU countries will be entitled to vote. 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 preserve 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.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment on Friday. One understands the situation and what this delegated legislation does, but I wish to raise the issue of reciprocal rights. The explanatory memorandum explains that British citizens living in France and Germany, for example, where we do not have reciprocal rights, will not be allowed to vote in their local elections. On the continent, in those countries where we do have reciprocal rights—I think those countries are Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg and Poland—that does not exist. What efforts is my hon. Friend making to ensure that there is—how can I put it?—a level playing field when it comes to local elections?
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. In the first place, I am grateful that our country has decided that we are on the moral high ground in giving those retained rights to EU citizens. I will certainly take up what he said in his intervention with my colleagues in the Foreign Office. He will understand that it is for them first and foremost to talk with European nations. He makes a good point; I will take that matter up with Foreign Office Ministers and write to him.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The impact assessment makes it clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay mentioned, the bilateral treaties at the moment are with four EU states—Poland, Spain, Luxembourg and Portugal. The line there is that the UK
“remains open to negotiating treaties with other EU Member States”.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister clarify whether we are proactively seeking that by approaching other EU states to see if they are interested in that reciprocity; whether we are open to approaches from them; or whether we have done our bit, got agreements from four of those countries and that is it?
Mr Baker
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The best thing that I can do is ask Foreign Office Ministers to write to him setting out their plans. After all, it is their responsibility first and foremost; my responsibility is Northern Ireland. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not trespass on their responsibilities and commit. He makes a good point, and I think that Foreign Office Ministers will wish to assure him that they are reaching out.
The chief electoral officer has a legal duty to ensure that the electoral register remains accurate. The instrument requires the chief electoral officer, as registration officer for the whole of Northern Ireland, to conduct a one-time review to determine the eligibility of all registered EU citizens. That bespoke eligibility review is designed to be fair and transparent for review subjects, and to minimise burdens on the chief electoral officer. As far as possible, it has been based on and benchmarked against existing practice and processes. The processes for Northern Ireland contained in the instrument mirror those for Great Britain.
Initially, the chief electoral officer will use data already available to them to confirm an elector’s continued eligibility without the need for and elector to take any action. Where the chief electoral officer is unable to confirm eligibility using existing data, the instrument requires them to contact the elector to request the information necessary to determine eligibility. In the event of no response, the chief electoral officer must make at least three attempts to contact the elector in writing, and at least one attempt to contact the elector in person, before they determine them to be ineligible.
It is clearly important that EU citizens are aware whether they remain on the register. Consequently, the instrument prescribes that all those reviewed will be notified of the franchise change and the review outcome. In addition, the instrument prescribes the contents of all review communications to ensure clarity and 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. The chief electoral officer, in common with registration officers in England, will have a nine-month implementation window, from 7 May 2024 to the 31 January 2025, to undertake the one-time review.
On completion of the review process, the Secretary of State will write to the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland to request data relating to the operation of the review process. That is slightly different from the position in England and Wales, where registration officers will report to the Electoral Commission. The franchise change will apply only to polls that are non-devolved, and, for Northern Ireland, will cover local and Assembly elections.
Some changes needed to reflect the candidacy changes and their implementation for Northern Ireland were made in the Elections Act. In practice, candidacy processes at local and Assembly elections will not change significantly. I hope that, having set out the details and having committed to write in response to interventions from my hon. Friends, we can ensure that colleagues are satisfied with our commitment to reach out to other European nations. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Putney.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert. I thank the Minister for setting out the process that will be implemented on the completion of the new regulation. The Labour party does not seek to reignite the arguments that took place over certain regulations during the passage of the Elections Act—I served on the Committee considering that legislation—so I know how much it was argued about.
I appreciate the need to update the law to comply with sections in the Elections Act on EU citizens’ voting rights. The new regulations are laid before us in the form of this statutory instrument, which would alter the existing franchise in elections across Northern Ireland so that they are in line with our exit from the European Union. It is a necessary step, and as a principle Labour believes that people who contribute to society, work hard and pay their taxes should have some sort of say in decisions being made for their community. It 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 the Opposition will not oppose the regulation today. I ask the Minister, following interventions by the hon. Members for Gloucester and for Basildon and Billericay, what the Government are doing to increase the number of countries with which we have reciprocal rights. I also want to ask the Minister what work is being done in conjunction with local authorities across Northern Ireland to ensure that the EU citizens affected are given ample information about when and how to make sure they qualify, and how to maintain their right to vote.
I also want to know what additional support is being provided to the electoral registration officers who will now be asked to check on a case-by-case basis whether EU citizens currently registered to vote can remain so in future. Given the written and in-person contact process that the Minister outlined, their workload is likely to increase significantly and Government support must match that.
Mr Baker
In relation to future bilateral treaties, as we have said, the UK remains open to negotiating fully reciprocal bilateral agreements where EU member states are interested in doing so. With the agreement of the Committee, I will write to the hon. Lady and place a copy of the letter in the Library, and ensure that it is drawn to the attention of all Members. Some EU countries already grant local voting and candidacy rights to third-country nationals, including UK nationals, unilaterally. In most cases, that is subject to minimum residency requirements.
We will work with councils in Northern Ireland to ensure that the requirements are adequately communicated. I set out earlier the need for the chief electoral officer to approach EU citizens three times if there is no response, and make one approach in person. That is a robust way of ensuring that people keep their right to vote if they are entitled to do so. On additional resources, I do not have immediately to hand the relevant note, so I will write to the hon. Lady. We think that what we are doing is reasonable and in line with present practice. I recognise that the one-time review will impose some burdens, but I will write to her.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Public Charge Point Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Charge Point Regulations 2023.
It is an absolute delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
A successful transition to zero-emission vehicles will require a reliable, accessible and affordable charging network across the country. More than 49,000 public charge points have already been installed. The Government and industry are continuing to work together to drive up those numbers, and members of ChargeUK, an industry organisation, has committed to doubling the number of charge points over the next 12 months and anticipates some £6 billion of investment in charging infrastructure over the next few years. The draft regulations will help to ensure that electric vehicle drivers can travel confidently, knowing that they can find a fully operational charge point suitable to their needs, and can more easily pay at any charge point. To develop the regulations, my Department engaged with consumer groups, vehicle manufacturers, technical experts and the charge point industry to understand better the barriers and proposed mitigations.
The statutory instrument introduces contactless payment at many new charge points. Within one year, all new public charge points with a power rating of 8 kW and above must provide contactless payment, and all existing charge points of 50 kW and above must be retrofitted. Within two years, all charge point operators must offer payment roaming at all their charge points through at least one third-party roaming provider. Consumers will be able to pay for a charge across multiple charge points through one app or radio frequency identity—RFID—card, similar to a fuel card for petrol and diesel cars. That element is important for fleet electrification, and will enable fleet operators to centralise the billing for the charging of electric vehicles.
Consumers will be able to understand how much they are paying to charge their vehicles, as pricing transparency is mandated. That will in turn empower them to find the best-value charge for their needs. The total price of a charging session must be displayed in pence per kilowatt-hour and should be clearly displayed either on the charge point or through a separate device, to make price comparison across different networks easier. Once the charging session has started, the price will not increase. Offers such as combining parking and charging fees will be permissible if the charging component is also displayed in pence per kilowatt-hour. Charge point operators must open and share their charge point data, make sure it is accurate and ensure it conforms to an open data standard—the open charge point interface protocol—within one of the draft regulations.
Opening up charge point data will drive industry innovation, drive the development of consumer-friendly apps, and put more detailed and reliable data at consumers’ fingertips, making it easier to locate available charge points. The draft regulations will also require reliability across the public rapid charge point network. Charge point operators must ensure that the network of public charge points of 50 kW and above is working 99% of the time, starting one year from the date that the regulations come into effect. That will be measured as an annual average. The measure will give the public far greater confidence in the public charge point network and make it easier for the public to find a working charge point.
Finally, the draft regulations will mandate that all charge point operators must run a 24/7 free-to-use telephone helpline for consumers within one year, and clearly display the details on charge points or through a separate device. Operators will be expected to resolve issues that are within their control. The draft regulations are essential to improving the consumer experience of charging and driving electric vehicles in the UK, and I commend them to the Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I agree with much of what the Minister said. His points about the need to raise confidence among drivers and to address our net zero targets and obligations are set out well in section 7 of the explanatory notes. I welcome the fact that the price will be displayed on charge points and that the use of contactless will be obligatory. There is much to commend about the step forward taken by the draft regulations. However, a series of questions emerge from the regulations regarding how we improve on what has been set out.
On current trends—the Minister in the Lords confirmed this—there will be a 10-year delay in achieving the Government’s target of 300,000 set for 2030. At the moment, there are 30 cars per charge point and, on current trends, that will be 64 by 2030. Delaying the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars to 2035 will also mean that it will take longer before drivers have the cheaper option of using an electric car. At present, we have 14 northern cities with fewer charge points, combined, than the city of Westminster.
As things stand, there is a lot of progress to be made. I accept that these regulations will contribute to that, but do they go far enough? As the Minister alluded to in his figures, 81% of current chargers will not be covered by the regulations, certainly in the immediate period, and not all new chargers will either, although there is a rationale for that, which I am sure the Minister will pick up in response to my questions. However, does he share my concern that many charge points still will not necessarily have a contactless option or, importantly, show the price?
The Office for Product Safety and Standards will be responsible for enforcing the regulations, but what assurances can the Minister give that the OPSS will have sufficient capacity to enforce these regulations, to give that confidence and peace of mind to drivers? Incidentally, that peace of mind and confidence is important in creating the market demand and confidence for manufacturers and investors in domestic automotive production.
I also want to ask about payment cards for the various different networks that have emerged and the multiplicity of apps. I have now lost count of the number of apps on my phone for different charge points around the country. Does the Minister have any plans or thoughts around the ability to combine the different charge point owners and networks so that they can all be accessed through single payment cards or charge cards, and whether they can be brought together into single apps? It can be confusing at the moment and, as he quite rightly said, raising consumer confidence is key to people buying and using electric vehicles. That is very much linked to what he has set out in these regulations.
I would also ask the Minister about grid capacity and decision making in planning because improvement is needed in the speed in which grid connections, and often planning decisions, are made. He mentioned ChargeUK; I know that it is keenly concerned about this, and I am sure that it has raised that with him as it has with me. What plans does the Minister have to improve the speed at which new charge points can be connected to the grid? We have the absurd situation in which one can drive around the country and see new facilities that are unused for months on end because they cannot be connected to the grid.
Therefore, what is the Minister’s intention to improve grid connections and to speed up planning decisions? I am sure that he will agree that the lack of planning officers in local authorities up and down the country really does not help. Perhaps he could use his connections with colleagues in other Departments to address that particular problem. Labour has plans to back motorists, to set targets for charge points around the country, ensuring greater certainty for the network providers, and to support an increase in installations. We also have plans to improve decision making by speeding up the planning process.
Finally, three and a half years ago, the Government announced the £950 million rapid charging fund. When will that start to be allocated, and when will it be available to use in those areas of the country where it is harder for the networks to install charge points? It is a great frustration that that money is so far unused. In government, Labour intends to use that fund to ensure that we increase take-up and installation and thereby encourage the greater availability of charge points to support drivers up and down the country.
Jesse Norman
I welcome the hon. Member for Sefton Central to his shadow role and thank him for his cross-party support for the regulations. Let me engage with his important set of questions.
The hon. Member talked about a 10-year delay in achieving 300,000 charge points. It is important to be clear that there is no such delay. The goal is to reach 300,000 by 2030, and we are well advanced in relation to that goal even at this early stage. Of course, the level of investment that we anticipate, and that has been triggered by the laying of the zero-emission vehicle mandate, will provide an important private sector impetus.
Bill Esterson
I want to tease this point out. In the Lords, Baroness Vere said that 3,870 charge points were installed between April and July, and figures of 1,000 a month were also quoted in that debate. At that rate, only half of that 300,000 figure will be achieved by 2030. What does the Minister think will change between now and then, in respect of the draft regulations or more widely, to achieve that 300,000 figure?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Member. Of course, I think any sensible observer expects that the combined effect of the new regulations, technology and a massive amount of new investment will drive the rate of installation upwards. I cannot do any better than refer the hon. Member to the comments of the independent National Infrastructure Commission, which has said that it expects the Government to meet the target if installations continue to grow at the current rate of 30% a year, as they have in recent years.
In relation to the zero-emission vehicle mandate, the hon. Member suggested that it would somehow take longer to charge because of the removal of the ban from 2030. It is possible that there will be a very slight effect in that way, but it is also important to note that the substance of the mandate and its particular regulations for the provision of electric vehicles on the road have not changed. We would therefore expect that to drive the installation of electric vehicle chargers.
The hon. Member highlights that a relatively large percentage of current charge points are not covered in the regs. Of course, a decision has had to be made as to what is the cost-effective rate at which to require retrofitting. Having done a lot of consultation with the industry, and precisely based on a desire to incentivise the maximum speed of installation, which the hon. Member emphasised, the Government have decided to strike the balance so that 7 kW chargers and below are exempt from having to provide for contactless payments. Again, that is a trade-off that has to be made to achieve the faster rates of investment and installation that the hon. Member seeks.
The hon. Member is right to raise the question of enforcement, which is obviously important. Regulations are nothing without enforcement. The OPSS will enforce the regulations, as he says, and it has the capacity to apply financial penalties where necessary. It is actually a very good choice of enforcement agency, because it has a strong reputation and already enforces the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulations 2017 and the Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021, which contain provisions on charge point data and payments. It is therefore already familiar with enforcing data and payment requirements on electric vehicle charge points, and so is well placed.
Bill Esterson
My question was actually about the capacity of the office. Hopefully there will be hundreds of thousands of charge points in the near future. How will they achieve enforcement with current staffing levels? Are there plans to improve staffing levels? Has the Minister analysed whether current staffing levels are adequate to cover that enforcement?
Jesse Norman
On capacity, I was going to point out that far from being new to this area, the OPSS is already up to speed and enforcing it under other regulations. It has hit the ground running. However, it is recognised that this will be an improvement. The Government have therefore set up a technical working group so that Government agencies, industry members and technical experts can work together on this. The delay in the overall enforcement of the rules, as set out in the statutory instrument, allows an approach to enforcement that we think is suitable to the scale of the investment requirement and the enforcement challenge. Ministers will continue to monitor this with the OPSS to ensure that the capacity remains adequate to the target.
The hon. Member asked about confidence. He is absolutely right about the importance of confidence, and that is why the zero-emission vehicle mandate is such an important measure. It is not just a huge measure for decarbonisation; it is aimed at stimulating investment in the private infrastructure charge point industry, and that is what it is doing. He pointed to the multiplicity of apps, and he is right about that. There is always a point in the development of any market where it goes from being a series of attempted land grabs and moves for a particular position to one where there is interoperability and a level playing field. That is what these open data requirements are designed to do. I would expect there to be consolidation, as there has already been in the industry, as consumers increasingly focus on using the open data and the most effective apps for their needs.
The hon. Member mentioned grid capacity, which is an important issue. As I am sure that the industry will report, I have been vigorous in talking to colleagues and the district network operators about the importance of an adequate supply of charge to parts of the country that need it. Lots of work is under way in this area, and he is right to point out the need for cross-departmental co-ordination.
I share his frustration at the slow rate of progress on rapid charging points; I would prefer it to be much faster. There have been competition issues and complexities, because in rapid charging areas—many of them motorway service areas—there are significant complexities of ownership and control between the charge point operator, the motorway service area, the landlord and access. Those must be negotiated in each case. I am pleased to say that there are increasing levels of rapid charge in motorway service areas. It is useful and helpful that Tesla has opened up all its new charge points to all other manufacturers, so that the widest possible provision will be available there and elsewhere.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
IVF Provision
(1 year 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
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of IVF provision.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Robertson. I start by thanking everyone who came along to the briefing on this matter yesterday, and in particular, Megan and Whitney, Laura-Rose Thorogood from LGBT Mummies, and Michael Johnson-Ellis from TwoDads UK for sharing their deeply personal stories and for the time they spent talking to MPs about this important issue.
As a mum of two wonderful boys, one of whom was conceived through IVF—in vitro fertilisation—this subject is close to my heart. Everyone deserves a chance to start a family, no matter their sexuality or gender identity. It was around 14 or 15 years ago that I started the IVF process as part of a same-sex couple. At the time, we went through unnecessary procedures, a long waiting list and significant costs, but despite the hurdles, it was achievable and my wonderful youngest son is now 13.
In the 13 years that my son has been alive, life for LGBTQ+ people in the UK has got progressively worse, and not just in terms of IVF. In many ways, life for LGBTQ+ people has gone backwards over the past decade. Homophobic and transphobic bullying is on the rise, trans hate crime has risen, waiting lists for LGBTQ+ physical and mental healthcare are through the roof, and virtually every day we see an attack on our community from this Government. From attacks on LGBTQ+ refugees to attacks on inclusive education in schools, to language outright denying trans rights, the Government have ramped up their war on woke using divisive and inflammatory rhetoric that is designed to stoke hate and distract from the mess they have made of this country, ahead of the next general election.
Ministers have failed to keep their promise to ban so-called conversion therapy in full, allowing the barbaric practice to continue. As for IVF for same-sex couples, we are still waiting for the Government to keep their promise to remove the discriminatory practical and financial barriers that LQBTQ+ couples face.
Since the IVF journey that I was part of, NHS waiting lists have become longer and the hurdles that LQBTQ+ couples have to jump through have increased. A fragmented NHS means that there is a postcode lottery for provision, and the financial cost is significantly higher. If I were starting my journey to become a parent now, even on an MP’s salary, I doubt I would be able to afford to complete the process. It is a disgrace that 14 or 15 years later, couples like Megan and Whitney still have to go through the same unnecessary fertility tests that we had to go through.
When speaking to people ahead of this debate, it has been depressing to repeatedly hear from women who have given up on their dream to become a parent because they have run out of money. LGBTQ+ people are being priced out of having a family. Lesbian, bisexual, non-binary and trans women couples are expected to demonstrate their infertility before the NHS will fund IVF. To do so, they must pay privately for up to 12 rounds of artificial insemination.
Yesterday, MPs heard at first hand from people this is having a huge impact on, including Megan and Whitney, who are here again today to listen to this debate. Megan and Whitney spoke about their integrated care board requiring them to pay for 12 rounds of artificial insemination before they would be eligible for any treatment on the NHS, which led to their decision to take their ICB to a judicial review. I have spoken to many couples who have spent £30,000, £50,000, or £60,000 on treatment, and many more have given up because they cannot afford to start the process. They have been priced out of having children. Last week, the BBC referred to the situation as a
“‘gay tax’ facing same-sex couples starting a family”.
Megan and Whitney’s legal case more than a year ago helped to prove that NHS England’s IVF policy discriminated against same-sex couples. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends that couples who have been unsuccessful in conceiving after two years should be offered three full cycles of in vitro fertilisation for women under 40 and one cycle for women aged between 40 and 42. The current requirement is that same-sex couples are expected to self-fund up to 12 intrauterine insemination cycles before they are eligible for NHS IVF treatment.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
One thing that is becoming more dangerous as a result of same-sex couples having to pay for artificial insemination is the rise in people on Facebook offering their services at a low-cost price. This means that unofficial sperm donors are selling their sperm on social media sites, and that is not covered by the Online Safety Bill. It is really dangerous and exploits same-sex couples, and there are all the health ramifications to which this could lead.
Kate Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will touch on that later. The guidelines are due to be updated next year. The Government have accepted that the situation is unfair and discriminatory. Last year’s women’s health strategy promised to remove the additional financial barriers to IVF for female same-sex couples in England, including removing the requirement to privately fund artificial insemination to prove fertility status before accessing NHS IVF services.
I am pleased that the Minister with responsibility for mental health and women’s health strategy is responding to this debate. In May she said:
“We expect the removal of the additional financial burden faced by female same-sex couples when accessing IVF treatment to take effect during 2023.”
On 11 September 2023, in response to a parliamentary question, she told the House:
“We remain committed to remove the requirement for female same-sex couples to self-fund six rounds of artificial insemination before being able to access National Health Service-funded treatment. NHS England are intending to issue commissioning guidance to integrated care boards to support implementation, which is expected shortly.”
We are still waiting for that guidance. The response also failed to acknowledge that, even now, some ICBs are still requiring self-funding for up to 12 rounds. With just 10 weeks left of 2023, the promise to remove the additional financial burden in 2023 will obviously not be met.
Of the 42 integrated care boards in England, only four offer fertility treatment to same-sex couples without the requirement to pay privately for artificial insemination. Ten more have said that they are reviewing their policies, but without the guidance from the Government or NHS England, there is not even a timeline for ICBs to make the changes needed. The Minister must ensure the full implementation of the recommendation from the women’s health strategy and work with NHS England to set out a clear timeline to bring an end to the inequalities experienced by LGBTQ+ couples when accessing fertility services.
In England, the NHS will fund in vitro fertilisation for heterosexual couples who have been trying for a baby unsuccessfully for at least two years and who also meet certain other criteria such as age and weight, yet even here, there is a postcode lottery for IVF. Some ICBs use the outdated tool of body mass index as a way of measuring health and refuse women IVF on the basis of their or their partner’s BMI. Some ICBs set their own criteria—that happened to one of my constituents—and refuse to offer IVF if either person in the couple already has a child with a previous partner. I hope that the Minister’s guidance deals with all those inequalities in provision.
Stonewall and DIVA’s 2021 LGBTQI+ Insight survey found that 36% of LGBTQI+ women and non-binary respondents who had children experienced barriers or challenges when starting their family. One in five of those stated that the greatest barrier or challenge was the high cost of private fertility treatment.
Stonewall’s latest research shows that 93% of ICBs are still falling short of the women’s health strategy’s target. The Government and NHS England have said that they have a 10-year strategy to tackle that. Most women cannot wait 10 years for the rules to change. For the majority of people, raising tens of thousands of pounds is impossible. The policy is making them financially infertile.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. As well as the point about the strategy’s length of time, there is the age of some of us in the LGBT community. The fact that same-sex marriage did not come until some of us were older, and that many of us came out later in life, means that there is a very short window for older LGBT people to take the opportunity to get pregnant or be parents.
Kate Osborne
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Generally, couples are starting their families later, and all these barriers make it almost impossible for so many to start a family.
Many organisations have been in touch with concerns about IVF provision, such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the Progress Educational Trust, the National AIDS Trust and many more. The National AIDS Trust has been challenging discriminatory legislation that prevents many people living with HIV from starting a family.
Under UK law, people living with HIV do not have the same rights as everyone else in accessing fertility treatment. Scientific evidence has demonstrated that there is no risk of HIV transmission through gamete donation, due to advances in HIV treatment. That has been accepted for people in a heterosexual relationship. Heterosexual couples are classified as being “in an intimate relationship” by the Government’s microbiological safety guidelines, and people living with HIV are allowed to donate gametes to their partner. However, that intimate relationship designation is not available to LGBTQ+ couples, creating yet another layer of discrimination on access to fertility treatment for LGBTQ+ people living with HIV.
Yesterday, LGBT Mummies told MPs that, in some cases, when people are denied fertility funding access, they look to alternative routes, such as home insemination. Going down that route comes with physical, psychological and legal implications, which, in turn, cost the Government and the NHS more than if the treatment and chance of family creation were offered in the first place. Laura-Rose told us that although home insemination has really worked for some people, and they have a great relationship with their donor, it can be dangerous for others. It has led to inappropriate proposals to donate only if people have intercourse with the donor. As well as the health risks, if people do not use registered banks or clinics to obtain sperm, there is the possibility that a donor could later try to claim parental rights over a child.
Laura-Rose spoke about how lucky she is to be a parent, but she is still paying off the debt after incurring costs of more than £60,000. So many families she is working with are simply priced out of having a family. TwoDads UK also raised similar concerns in their briefings and contact with MPs, with Michael setting out that the inequality is pushing a community of people to take risks. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists told me that there is significant and unacceptable variation in the availability of NHS-funded fertility treatments in the UK, and that it strongly believes there should be equal access to fertility treatment for same-sex couples. It called on the Government and NHS England to support integrated care boards to ensure that that commitment is realised as soon as possible.
I hope that the Minister has listened to all the concerns and evidence from the many organisations I have mentioned, and others will no doubt be referenced in the debate. Ministers and NHS England can put an immediate end to the discrimination in IVF provision facing LGBTQ+ couples. It is unacceptable that the fertility treatment available for women through the NHS varies depending on where they live. The financial burden on same-sex couples is unacceptable, and we cannot wait any longer. The Government’s guidance and timetable for this to end should be published now. The Minister has recognised that the discrimination is unacceptable, and I hope to hear in her response that immediate action will be taken to remove these unnecessary additional practical and financial burdens from LGBTQ+ couples.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this important debate about IVF provision for the LGBT community, but I think we need to talk about the whole of IVF provision across the country. This is so important, particularly in the week before National Fertility Awareness Week. We are not here next week, unfortunately, so we have to speak about it this week.
IVF has become a focal point for much of the work that I am doing in Parliament, ever since I received disturbing correspondence from a constituent. She told me her story and when I looked into it, I found that it resonated with women across the country. She was working in the financial sector and had had a very successful career for 20 years. She decided to use IVF to get pregnant because of her fertility issues. After complications, her employers discovered that she was undergoing IVF treatment, and from that day onwards, they put pressure on her to move from the UK to Switzerland for her job, which meant she would not be able to continue with her IVF treatment.
My constituent made the really difficult decision to leave her job. She went to an employment tribunal and ended up getting a non-disclosure agreement. She has not been able to speak publicly about her experience and the unfairness that so many people face when it comes to IVF provision, whatever their sexuality or gender, and that is why I have taken up her case.
Unfortunately, stories like that are repeated too often across the country. To make matters worse, the issues relating to the availability of treatment—the inability of people to access it due to work commitments—are countrywide. Work commitments are not the only constraint on accessing IVF treatment. For example, the availability of treatment has, for years, been based on where an individual lives. However, 2023 has provided us with reasons to be hopeful for the future: for the first time in over a decade, all areas of England now have access to NHS-funded facility treatment. But as we heard from the hon. Member for Jarrow, that does not always mean that people can get instant access to it. It is vital that we end the postcode lottery that has been established in this country when it comes to accessing IVF treatment.
The NHS estimates that one in seven couples may be struggling to conceive, and obviously, for the LGBT community that is higher because of same-sex marriages. I have always said that infertility does not discriminate. It does not matter what a person’s background is. I have heard some really emotional testimony from people from ethnic minorities who have struggled even further in this country because of egg donation, and who have to go to Nigeria, in particular, to get their eggs. We have to widen the understanding of how people from ethnic minorities in the LGBT community struggle even more than same-sex white couples in this country. That is why it is so important to have this debate.
Hannah Bardell
There are, of course, many in the LGBT community who will suffer from infertility, but the reality is that, as a starting point, it is not necessarily the infertility that is the issue; it is that we are same-sex. Does she recognise that the guidelines are based on infertility rather than recognising the unique nature and differences of various LGBT families?
Nickie Aiken
Absolutely, and I will come on to that point. It is always about infertility, is it not? It should be about fertility and fertility treatment.
According to the UK fertility regulator—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—it takes, on average, three cycles of IVF to achieve success. I would like to praise the regulator for its recent announcement— I think from last week—regarding its grading of supplementary fertility treatment to help individuals and couples to determine what is a proven treatment and what is safe and cost-effective. That is most welcome, and I have had so many people come to me over the past year or so saying that the cost of IVF can be added on to all the time. In particular, people in clinics say, “Oh, you should have this scan” or “You might need to have this blood test—it might prove more successful.” When a person is in that situation, they will do anything they can to get pregnant. The costs do add up, so I am really pleased that the HFEA has released that guidance. I hope clinics across this country will take note.
Nevertheless, fertility treatment is still an emotionally draining, costly, risky and very long process. Undergoing treatment while juggling a job is particularly tough, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Unlike employment legislation on pregnancy, maternity and paternity, there is no enshrined legislation that compels employers to give time off work for fertility treatment or any initial consultation. The Equality Act 2010 was well intentioned and removed some forms of discrimination in the workplace, but unfortunately it does not help to prevent discrimination against those who are pursuing fertility treatment, as it does not class infertility as a disability. For example, most workplace protection policies exclude elective medical procedures, putting fertility treatment on a par with cosmetic surgery.
Last year, I introduced the fertility workplace pledge. While my private Member’s Bill, the Fertility Treatment (Employment Rights) Bill, has faced its difficulties progressing through the House, the fertility workplace pledge that I launched asks businesses to sign up voluntarily to provide employees undergoing IVF treatment with the support and the time off they need. We have consistently seen new businesses signing up over the past year, including the likes of Channel 4, Aldi and NatWest—even the Houses of Parliament have signed up to become a fertility workplace ambassador. More and more businesses are signing up, and there are now several a week. I ask hon. Members to encourage employers in their constituency to look at the fertility workplace pledge and consider signing up. If we can do this voluntarily rather than through employment law, all the better, because it changes the debate, the discussions and the attitude towards fertility treatment.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech; I thank her for all her work in this area. One of the problems is that the societal stigma around fertility treatments persists and is quite vicious and vocal. Infertility is not seen as a disease, and it is not seen as something with equal weight to other conditions. We need to change this in schools. There has been a lot of talk today about the Government’s sex education programme. In school we are taught how not to get pregnant, but we are never told that we might not be able to get pregnant. There are serious conversations to be had about how to change the cultural stigma around fertility treatment. That starts with education in schools.
Nickie Aiken
The hon. Member makes a very good point. On sex education in schools, it is imperative that we teach our children about all types of relationships, including same-sex and heterosexual couples, at an age-appropriate time. In my opinion, four and five-year-olds need to be taught about same-sex couples as much as about heterosexual couples. I really hope that that goes ahead—but I digress.
I want to pay tribute to all the organisations that have been helping me on my fertility workplace journey: Fertility Matters at Work, Fertility Network UK, TwoDads UK and many more whose help has unquestionably been vital to push towards the fertility workplace pledge and improve access to IVF for everyone.
As we have heard, there is one particular group who can benefit greatly from IVF and deserve equal access. The LGBTQ+ community are reliant on IVF to have their own biological children. I was pleased to hear the Government promise to make access to fertility treatment fairer last year. For too long, many in the LGBTQ+ community have faced what has been labelled the gay tax. This is because LGBTQ couples have to pay privately for their first six to 12 rounds of artificial insemination to prove their infertility, which would then grant them access to NHS IVF treatment or, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said earlier—
Hannah Bardell
I remind the hon. Lady—not to boast too much, but to share positive experiences—that that is only in England in Wales. People in Scotland do not have to go through that process.
Nickie Aiken
I thank the hon. Lady for pointing that out. It is not often that Scotland is ahead of England on the NHS. I am delighted to hear that.
I acknowledge that the change in policy will take time to implement. However, I ask the Minister to look into speeding up support to our LGBTQ communities. Such support is needed desperately in this area. They should not have to wait longer even than heterosexual couples.
Ultimately, I believe that we are on the cusp of real progress in access and attitudes. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) made clear about attitudes towards IVF, it is important that we break down the barriers from as early an age as possible. I know that the Minister is as passionate as I am about supporting individuals as they decide to go through fertility treatment. I therefore see it as vital that we all work together to bring down the remaining few barriers to make IVF treatment a viable option for everyone and anyone who wishes to start their own family, and to make it as stress-free as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for raising the issue of IVF provision and setting the scene so well. I will raise some examples from my constituency, where IVF treatment issues have had a detrimental effect on ladies who wish to have a family, with costs and financial implications for their lives, which have been changed in dramatic ways. A number of my constituents have contacted me about the issue over the years.
I am ever mindful that the Minister present does not have responsibility for the figures or the subject matter in Northern Ireland, but there is a real anomaly that I have to put on the record. I always bring a Northern Ireland perspective to these debates, as everyone knows. I do so because I hope to add to the conversations that we are having and perhaps show where the shortfalls are.
This important issue has an impact on many parents daily—it is indeed daily—and it is a pleasure to speak about it as my party’s spokesperson on health issues. Nothing is more precious than the gift of life. It is awful that for so many it is a struggle, so it is great to have the opportunity to debate, discuss and request further provision of IVF across the United Kingdom.
I will first highlight some differences between the mainland and Northern Ireland to add perspective to the debate. It was recently brought to my attention by a young constituent going through the process of IVF that on the mainland a person whose BMI is 35 can access medicated ovulation support, but in Northern Ireland it is 30. Sometimes that request is difficult for people in Northern Ireland to achieve. On the mainland, too, a person whose BMI is 30 can qualify for IVF, but in Northern Ireland it must be 25. Again, the criterion set in Northern Ireland is more stringent and difficult to achieve than that on the mainland. That is not the Minister’s fault, but it provides perspective for the debate.
Many women in Northern Ireland have stated that the BMI issue is by far the biggest, and it leaves them with a feeling of sheer inequality. We have a clear issue of inequality in the system. Some of my constituents have come to the mainland to get IVF treatment. It can have a significant cost for them, which cannot be ignored. Why do they have to have a lower body mass index and be smaller to achieve the same fertility treatment as their English counterparts?
There is definitely an equality issue to be addressed. The hon. Member for Jarrow set out inequality in the system, and I support what she said. I reiterate the clear inequalities that my constituents face in comparison with those here. It is also worth mentioning that a woman suffering from polycystic ovary syndrome will struggle to lose weight at the same pace as someone who does not have PCOS.
There is already a prolonged process in place before people even achieve the criteria set back home. In England, according to NICE, women under 40 should be offered three rounds of NHS-funded IVF treatment if they have been trying unsuccessfully to start a family for two or more years. In Northern Ireland, it is only one round, and if the person or their partner has prior children, the entitlement is zero. As the hon. Member for Jarrow set out, the inequality is very apparent. Additionally, given that the chances of success vary depending on age, one round can be completely worthless in some cases. Unfortunately, some of the ladies who have come to me over the years have put themselves into debt in excess of a five-figure sum just to have a child, and the treatment may not be successful. Some of them are still paying the money back, and they have not had the child they sought to have in their life. It really is frustrating.
The Stormont Executive committed in 2020 to increase the number of funded cycles for a woman to have a baby. However, this is purely dependent on the money that Northern Ireland receives under the Barnett consequentials. Financial capacity restraints are the reason why the change has not been implemented. In this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on the future of NHS funding, I will highlight the issue of IVF funding and how it affects my constituents. We cannot expect to have a sustainable NHS if we do not make the effort to fund it properly.
I understand that capacity is different in Wales, where women are able to have only two rounds of IVF treatment. The fact that women in Scotland and England get three is completely unjust, as those in Northern Ireland get only one. It is a clear example of how we continue to be left behind, and it demonstrates the inequalities in the system for us in Northern Ireland.
NHS funding for IVF cycles varies considerably across the United Kingdom. In 2021, Scotland had the highest rate of NHS-funded IVF cycles, at 58%, compared with 30% in Wales and 24% in England. I know that the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) will give the figures for Scotland; I commend the country for achieving that percentage. Let us give it credit for doing so, because we should all be trying to achieve that.
The figures for Northern Ireland are not available, although I have sought hard to get them. I have written to the Department of Health back home to see whether they can be accessed, so hopefully I will have them in the next week or two. Self-funding is not always an option for couples due to the sheer cost of the process, but it is important to note the comparison.
Every time a lady undergoes an IVF cycle and is not successful, anxiety, depression and disappointment creep into the process. Then she might do it again and again. I know of one lady who has had IVF treatment at least five times, but it has never been successful. I feel for ladies who are keen to have a child and who go through the cycles of IVF treatment but are not successful. I believe that children make a marriage or a relationship. They might sometimes stress parents out but, at the end of the day, children are a bonus and a pleasure to have. I am pleased that at least some of us have had that opportunity.
I urge the Minister to take my comments into consideration and to discuss these matters with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. I seek the Minister’s input; she always responds with compassion and understanding, which we appreciate. In relation to where we are in Northern Ireland, will she accept my request to have discussions with the Department of Health back home and see whether there is some way we can work together better to help my constituents and those across Northern Ireland who do not have funding for IVF? We must allow people in Northern Ireland the same right as those in the rest of the United Kingdom, and implement NICE’s recommendation to have three cycles of IVF for women struggling to conceive.
I wanted to make this small contribution to the debate, because it is important that we share our experiences. For those in Northern Ireland whose IVF treatment has been successful, the experience has been wonderful, but for many people it has not. The inequalities are clear.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship this morning, Mr Robertson. I thank all colleagues for their contributions, which really have been excellent. This is the best of Parliament. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on her fantastic speech and on securing this vital debate.
It is fair to say that we are living in difficult times, with a huge range of issues facing us as parliamentarians, from healthcare to education and from energy prices to job insecurity. They all have an impact on our constituents up and down the country, but there is absolutely no reason why fertility and IVF provision—issues that clearly impact so many people—should not take centre stage.
It has been genuinely fascinating to meet and hear from so many families impacted by infertility and access to fertility treatment, including some who are here today. The brilliant Megan and Whitney Bacon-Evans, Michael Johnson-Ellis from TwoDads UK and Laura-Rose of LGBT Mummies are some of the many who have campaigned hard on this issue for many years.
As we have heard, one in six couples suffer issues related to fertility. My IVF journey began in 2018, and I have been open that I knew right from the start that my road to pregnancy would not be easy. I am certainly one of the lucky ones—I was able to take out a loan and borrow from family to pay for my treatment, and after only one round of IVF I was blessed with my beautiful son Sullivan—but I still had many eye-opening experiences during my fertility journey that have led me to this point today. Ask anyone who has experienced IVF, whether personally or from watching loved ones go through the process, and they will say that IVF is one of the most emotionally, mentally and physically challenging and financially demanding processes that anyone can ever undertake.
We must be clear that the current state of the IVF and fertility treatment offering across the UK is far below what would-be parents deserve. It is vital that we right those wrongs that I am many others have experienced at first hand as IVF patients. The main issue, as has been discussed today, is the sheer lack of consistency across the UK in IVF services and provision. I was incredibly fortunate because I was in a position to pay privately for my IVF and because my partner already had two children from a previous relationship, although that meant that we suffered from what we call the step-parent tax. It should not have to be that way.
As we all know, the NICE fertility guidelines are crystal clear; we have heard them this morning. The NHS should offer women under 40 three full cycles of IVF if they have been trying for a child for more than two years. When policies and cycles offered are so different between integrated care boards, and do not take same-sex provision into account, that means that women and would-be parents across the UK are not being offered IVF services in a fair and transparent manner. That is an incredibly important point, made even more complicated by the huge discrepancies between fertility treatment providers in the data they publish.
Colleagues may be aware of my private Member’s Bill, the Fertility Treatment (Transparency) Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading on 24 November. The Bill will
“require providers of in vitro fertilisation to publish information annually about the number of NHS-funded IVF cycles they carry out and about their provision of certain additional treatments in connection with in vitro fertilisation”.
Those add-on treatments, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), have been offered to patients who are at their wits’ end and will do absolutely anything to improve their chances of having a child. I know their pain, because I was one of them. That is why I work closely with the HFEA, the Progress Educational Trust, Fertility Network UK and many others in the fertility sector who are concerned that many patients are frequently being offered and charged for optional extras to their treatment that claim to improve their chances of having a healthy baby, but are really exploiting people at their most vulnerable.
I was particularly pleased to see last week that the HFEA launched a new rating system to support patients undergoing fertility treatment. Patients are offered add-ons that claim to increase the success of treatment, but for most fertility patients the evidence to support that is missing or not very reliable. The HFEA add-ons rating will help patients to make better informed decisions about their treatment, although it is still only guidance and clinics have the right to ignore it. There is no right to enforce it: as we have heard, the HFEA as a regulator has very few teeth for enforcement. I urge the Minister to look at the issue more carefully and ensure that the regulations are being adhered to and that clinics are adopting the guidance. The new rating system, developed with patients and professionals in the fertility sector, has five categories giving detailed information for patients on whether add-ons increase the chances of success, along with other outcomes that also have an impact on miscarriage rates.
Although I welcome the progress, the wider issues on accessing IVF persist and we clearly have a long way to go in improving the situation. The Government’s women’s health strategy was a good starting point, but sadly we have still not seen any commitment on concrete action to improve access to IVF and fertility treatment. The strategy was published more than a year ago and was an opportunity for the Government to finally take some direct action, but instead it is once again clear that IVF is not an immediate priority.
I know that the Minister is listening. She has made her position very clear in previous debates on this subject, and I thank her for that engagement, but I sincerely hope that her colleagues in the Department and across Government are also listening and are taking the issue seriously. We have heard the strength of feeling this morning. I know that the Government are listening and that the Minister is listening; I just urge some direct action.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front-Bench speeches.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson, and I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for bringing forward this debate. She spoke beautifully and eloquently about her experiences; it enhances debate when Members, like the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), bring their own personal experiences.
It is very clear that there is unanimity, which does not happen often. I trumpet and champion the positive equality and the better standards that we have in Scotland, but I would love to see those standards rolled out, so that they were the same throughout the UK. It is not about political point scoring; it is about genuinely working together and sharing best practice. However, although it is significantly better in Scotland, we still have arbitrary limits across the board on the age when women are offered IVF. That is global—not just in the UK.
A recently-published report showed that, for the first time since the second world war, more women in their 40s than women in their 20s are having children. That is just a reality. There are all sorts of reasons for that—the cost of living crisis, the cost of accommodation, women’s career paths and the lack of childcare. All Governments in the UK are trying to do more around childcare and I recognise those challenges, but the reasons are varied and complex.
A Conservative Member recently said that more people need to have babies. I will not mention the Member, as I have not given due notice. It was an offhand comment and it rightly came in for a lot of criticism because of the intent. However, there is an irony there in that some on the Government Benches are saying that, yet we need more action from the Conservative Government. They need to reflect on that. They should look at the reasons why we have a stagnant birth rate and fewer people having children, and at what more can be done.
We have heard, particularly from the hon. Member for Jarrow, about the issues with the women’s health strategy: it is ambitious and the guidance is good, but it is not mandatory. We need it to be. We need to move away from the pot-luck nature of treatment, particularly in England and Wales. I was struck by the briefing, which led through the different levels of care, all the different boards across England and Wales and how challenging that must be for people—not just LGBT people but anyone seeking fertility treatment.
The hon. Member for Jarrow also spoke about the outdated BMI criteria and how those can vary. That is particularly challenging as well. Women’s bodies come in all shapes and sizes and for all different reasons. We must recognise that. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also spoke about that issue in relation to Northern Ireland: that arbitrary line is discriminatory. We need to remove the discrimination and those barriers.
The hon. Member for Jarrow also spoke about those with HIV and how they are being discriminated against, and both she and the hon. Member for Pontypridd talked about black-market sperm. Members may remember the 2017 BBC Three documentary. I watched it and was horrified. It showed LGBT couples and female same-sex couples searching the internet for donors and often facing quite dangerous situations. In 2023, people who so desperately want to have a family and to have children should not be forced into those situations. It is unthinkable.
Someone very close to me has been through several rounds of IVF. It cost her tens of thousands of pounds. She talked to me about going to a fertility fair in London, and all the different stalls and what an amazing experience that was in her journey; but a man came up to her and, in the middle of the fair, handed her a note with his phone number and a really inappropriate message, basically trying to push himself on to her to offer his sperm. She reported it and that person was removed, but that is a truly shocking story, showing just how predatory some men can be in such situations.
We also have to recognise that there are a lot of incredible men out there who donate their sperm and make it possible for others to use it, and there are also incredible women who donate their eggs. Such people make it possible particularly for those in the LGBT community but also heterosexual couples to have children.
It is a particular privilege to be able to represent Scotland’s approach to IVF, which, as I said, I am extremely proud of. Not only are we providing a higher proportion of NHS-funded cycles of treatment, but that means that the ability to have a baby is less affected by income.
There are particular challenges for LGBT couples, but I think we are pioneering some work in relation to those challenges. In addition, one of the things that happens if there is more standardised NHS treatment is that the clinics across Scotland—in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen; I think that is correct—collaborate, whereas when people are moving around, particularly in the private sector, they find that those private clinics keep their pioneering work—I am afraid to say—to themselves. I am sure that there is some collaboration, but that seems to be the case.
So, under the SNP-led Scottish Government, we have become a “gold standard” for IVF treatment. Those are not my words but those of Sarah Norcross, the director of Progress Educational Trust, which is an independent, London-based charity that advocates for people affected by fertility issues.
I must say that this is an area where the priorities of the Scottish Government and those of the UK Government are different. I hope that the UK Government will follow our lead; if they did, I am sure that my colleagues in the Scottish Government would be happy to share their experiences and best practice. Ms Norcross said that in Scotland IVF services were
“as good as it gets”.
The UK Government obviously have a different standard. So, as I say, I hope that this is something that we can share best practice on.
I also recognise that, as has already been mentioned by other hon. Members, the briefing yesterday by Megan and Whitney, LGBT Mummies and TwoDads UK was particularly powerful. It was really stark about the challenges that our community—I say this as a member of the LGBT community—has to face.
However, I also have heterosexual friends who have been through IVF. I have one friend who was fortunate enough to have her first baby through natural means. However, for various reasons she then went on to have secondary infertility. She cannot get fertility treatment on the NHS in Scotland. We will offer it to blended families. So, in the situation of the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I can tell her that if she had lived in Scotland, she would have been entitled to treatment. However, if someone has one child and wants to have more children with the same partner, unfortunately they would not be entitled to treatment. That is something that we need to look at in Scotland. Blended families are very much the norm now. If it is the case that someone has a child, or they and their partner both have children from previous relationships, and they are unfortunate enough to experience secondary infertility, they should have access to fertility treatment.
NHS-funded cycles in England decreased in number from 19,634 in 2019 to 16,335 in 2021, which is a 17% reduction. Covid will undoubtedly have played a part in that. In Wales, the number of NHS-funded cycles decreased from 1,094 to 704 over the same period. In Scotland there was a slight decrease, of just 1%, in that period.
In England, treatment is much more likely to be outsourced to private clinics, even when the costs are covered by the NHS, which has a serious negative impact on overall services. Fertility experts have pointed out that the major reason that fertility care in Scotland is so consistently excellent is that there is the collaboration that I mentioned.
I have also heard from a number of people I have spoken to that people are going abroad for fertility treatment. It would appear that they are going to clinics in Europe because the service there is better. That IVF tourism, as some people call it, is cheaper and seems to be better than the treatment here in the UK, but we do not want people to have to go abroad for that reason; we want people to be able to have their babies here.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) spoke very powerfully about her work in workplace fertility support. That is interesting, because a lot of people will not want to disclose information about their fertility, or they will not feel comfortable about doing so unless their employer is being open. I have perhaps a slightly different opinion from that of the hon. Member. Of course businesses should just provide such support, but businesses have a lot of pressure on them, and sometimes legislation can be the precursor or the catalyst for changes in behaviour and lead to the provision of real, solid support for people who are going through things such as IVF treatment.
Obviously, National Fertility Awareness Week is coming up; however, it was Baby Loss Awareness Week just the other week. I know somebody who, having gone through expensive fertility treatment, only managed the one embryo transfer, which unfortunately did not work. It can be very upsetting when an embryo transfer does not work, no matter the person’s sexuality.
I thank LGBT Mummies for the excellent job it has done on briefings. I will briefly go through its asks for the LGBT community, which include equal and equitable access, national mandated funding policy and provisions for all LGBTQI people. As the hon. Member for Jarrow powerfully highlighted in her speech, the LGBT community is facing discrimination and attacks like never before, including the removal of health services, which is something we all have to reflect on and look to improve. Its asks also include personalised fertility care and education for staff—something I have experienced myself, in the language health practitioners use and in their understanding of the different healthcare requirements of the LGBT community. They also include access to funded medication and tests for home insemination, co-produced funding provision with the community, and the ability to create our families safely by our chosen routes—not being forced down a route.
The difference in Scotland is that we do not have to go through those IUI cycles, but a challenge we have across the board is the arbitrary two-year timeline, where people have to have been in a relationship for two years. I do not know of anywhere where we say to heterosexual couples, “Don’t be having a baby until you’ve been together for two years.” We don’t do that, do we? So why are we doing that to LGBT people? That really does not make any sense.
Briefly, I want to reflect on my personal experience. I had a partial failed attempt at IVF with a former partner—I will not go into the details—but I did not start my journey until after I turned 40. I now regret that, because I am 40 and I will get only one shot, rather than three. I am only at the very beginning. I want to highlight to the Minister that piece about those of us who came out later in life. When I came out at 32, most of my friends were getting married and having kids, or already had kids, and I was just working out who I was. One reason that I did not come out earlier was that I so strongly wanted to have a family, and I did not think that would be open to me if I was gay. Equal marriage came much later in life for many people. Like many of us who did not start life as their authentic self, as some people say, until much later, I have felt like I am perennially playing catch-up, and I have now decided to just do it on my own. I do not know where my journey will take me, but I know there is a lot of support out there, and a lot of incredible people.
I am in a very fortunate position, but not many are that fortunate. As we have heard, people are going to the black market and putting themselves in massive debt; we should not be putting anybody in that situation. I hope the Minister will hear the calls from across the House, and I look forward to working with colleagues on this very important issue.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship this morning, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this important debate, and thank her for championing such an important issue so eloquently today. She talked about the barriers that LGBTQI+ couples face to having children, particularly being priced out, and the fact that while the guidance is good, more work needs to be done.
I thank Megan and Whitney for sharing their hard-hitting story, along with many others who have done so much work to ensure that we are informed about these challenges. I know that there was an urgent briefing yesterday on IVF provision. I am sure everyone will agree with me that this has been a good debate, and that it is clear that a number of changes need to be made for the sake of equality and fairness.
I also thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has clearly done a lot of work in this area, for talking about the barriers that individuals may face in the workplace when undergoing IVF treatment. She mentioned businesses signing up to the fertility workplace pledge. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about how the IVF process was impacting his constituents and, as always, gave a helpful picture of the situation in Northern Ireland. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for sharing her personal story and for her work on the private Member’s Bill, the Fertility Treatment (Transparency) Bill.
As we all know, becoming a parent can be a special and rewarding time for many people. It is the start of an exciting journey into parenthood and a time to celebrate new life. However, as we have heard, there are many challenges that women and families face when conceiving and many challenges in the way of those who seek NHS fertility treatments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow powerfully said, the challenges—both financial and emotional—for LGBTQ+ couples are so much higher. IVF is one of several techniques available to help people become pregnant. This medical procedure has transformed countless lives, providing hope and the possibility of parenthood to those who might otherwise never experience it.
While IVF is a celebrated medical advancement, the lack of accessibility and the inequality of provision in England and across the UK are issues that cannot and should not be ignored. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is responsible for making recommendations about who should have access to IVF treatment on the NHS in England. The current guidelines for England recommend that IVF should be offered to women under the age of 43 who have been trying to get pregnant for two years, as has been mentioned. The exact NICE recommendation is three full cycles for women under 40 and one full cycle for women aged 40 to 42. While in some areas women under 40 can access three cycles of IVF, in other areas they are offered one or even none.
For example, in 2020, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service used freedom of information requests to find out that 86 clinical commissioning groups—now ICBs—funded only one cycle of treatment. More concerningly, it found that three CCGs in England did not provide any funding for IVF services at all. In fact, only 23 CCGs funded three cycles as recommended by NICE.
Unsurprisingly, the provision of IVF services across England, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, has been described as a postcode lottery. I am sure we all agree that this is not right, that the policies are unfair and out of date, and that they must be updated as soon as possible.
I want to tackle the important issue raised by my hon. Friend about the need to break down barriers for all couples. As Stonewall has highlighted in its campaign on this issue, LGBTQI+ couples face incredible financial costs to achieve the same outcomes as everyone else. While the women’s health strategy pledged to remove financial barriers for female same-sex couples in England, the statistics prove that little progress has been made. According to Stonewall’s research, only four of the 42 ICBs in England officially provide NHS funding for artificial insemination, and nine in 10 ICBs in England still require same-sex couples to self-fund at least six cycles of intrauterine insemination before they are eligible for IVF treatment on the NHS. As the Minister will know, that means that LGBTQI+ couples are forced to go privately and end up paying large sums of money—thousands or even tens of thousands of pounds— before they can access NHS fertility services.
I agree with the crucial point that the Government must commit to tackling inequality in access to NHS-funded fertility services. ICBs should ensure fair access to treatment for all, and ensure that individuals within the LGBTQI+ community, including lesbians, bi women and trans individuals, are not left behind but have the same access to NHS-funded care. However, sadly, going private is now not the last resort but the norm for all individuals in England. In recent years, fewer and fewer women can access IVF treatments on the NHS, with everyone else having to go private. In fact, the use of privately funded IVF cycles by patients across the UK aged 18 to 34 increased to 63% in 2021 from 52% in 2019. That coincides with a fall across the board in numbers of NHS-funded IVF cycles. It is a damning result, highlighting the lack of support available on the NHS for women in the UK. Women are being forced to go private, and parents and families up and down the country face the added financial burden.
The Government must acknowledge that one of the main reasons for the falling levels of provision has been the extraordinary waiting times that women face prior to starting treatment. As the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has shown, although waiting lists were growing too quickly before the pandemic, the impact of the pandemic has made the situation significantly worse. There is an urgent need to reverse the growth of NHS waiting lists in gynaecology, and to ensure that women can access high-quality, timely care and treatment. I know that the Minister and this Government have committed to tackling those extraordinary waiting times, and I hope that she can update us regarding their progress on this critical issue. We all know that the quicker women are seen, the better the outcome will be.
Another critical factor is non-clinical access criteria, where mothers and parents can be denied access to treatment because of their relationship status—as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow—their body mass index, or the fact that one partner has a child from a former relationship. The women’s health strategy seeks to remove non-clinical access criteria to fertility treatment, and to address geographical variation in access to NHS-funded fertility services. We on the Labour Benches welcome that ambition, but we know, as do the Government, that it cannot be realised without providing the NHS with the staff and resources it needs. As part of the work, the Minister has said that her Department will work with NHS England to assess fertility provision across ICBs, with a view to removing non-clinical access criteria. Can she confirm the extent of her conversations with NHS England and update Members on the timeline for making the changes?
For far too long, women and their partners have faced unnecessary obstacles to accessing IVF treatment. The Government have had 13 years to address those problems. Instead, I am concerned that they have weakened standards for patients, who are paying more tax but getting worse care. On the important issue of provision of IVF treatment, I welcome the ambitions outlined in the women’s health strategy. I hope that, along with Megan and Whitney’s powerful story, the Minister has been listening to hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, who has made it clear that the reforms need to happen sooner rather than later.
I urge the Minister to assure us today that there will be full implementation of these aims, and to give us a timeline for when they will occur. I urge her to give us hope that there will be an end to the postcode lottery, and to the inequality in provision faced by so many individuals and partners across England and the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for tabling this important debate, and all Members across the Chamber for their contributions. It has been a positive debate—a good example of putting politics aside and debating how to do the right thing. While I am not denying the challenges for the LGBT+ community raised by the hon. Member, I want to highlight that the Government have brought in major changes over the years with the introduction of same-sex marriage, and the transformation of the management of HIV with the roll-out of opt-out testing and PrEP treatment.
I am pleased to announce that, following the advice from the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs, the Government will be introducing secondary legislation to allow the donation of gametes by people with HIV who have an undetectable viral load; we will be introducing that as soon as we can. We will also be addressing the current discriminatory definitions of partner donation, which result in additional screening costs for female same-sex couples undergoing reciprocal IVF; again, amendments through statutory instruments will be introduced as soon as possible.
Those are some of the measures that we have been working on, but I absolutely understand from what I have heard today that there are many issues still to be dealt with, and I welcome the hon. Member for Jarrow holding my feet to the fire to deliver change. Hopefully some of these updates will provide reassurance. This is a priority area, which is why IVF, fertility, and particularly same-sex access to IVF, were in the first year of the women’s health strategy, and it is why we are not going to wait for the 10 years of the strategy to introduce the changes.
To be clear, the Government are implementing a policy that no form of self-financed or self-arranged insemination is to be required for same-sex couples to access fertility treatment. I acknowledge that is taking a little while to be rolled out across the country. Hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), have spoken about infertility a lot. We absolutely recognise that it has a serious effect on individuals and couples, which is why it is a priority—particularly for the women’s health strategy.
As the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) pointed out, I can only speak on the provision of IVF in England, but I am very happy to work with colleagues in the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to achieve a consistent approach. Although we are dealing with the inconsistencies in England, if we are a United Kingdom, these matters need to be addressed across all four nations and I am not precious about stealing best practice from other parts of the UK.
In our call for evidence for the women’s health strategy, women told us time and again that fertility was a key issue and that they felt very frustrated about the provision of, and access to, fertility treatment. Colleagues have made a number of important points which I will respond to in turn, but it has been recognised that there has been unequal access to IVF in England since the treatment was introduced; that is why this is such an important issue. There is resistance in some parts of the country to the changes the Government want to make, but I think we will be able to make progress on them.
NICE is reviewing its fertility guidelines, taking account of the latest evidence of clinical effectiveness. These will be published next year and we will be working with NHS England to implement these guidelines in England quickly and fairly. I am told that they will end regional variation and create a compassionate and consistent fertility service across England, but that does not mean that we cannot improve services in the meantime.
As has been set out, integrated care boards are now responsible for delivering IVF services. They were previously determined by CCGs, but from July last year the 42 ICBs across England are now responsible. Since the ICBs were created, we have seen a levelling up of IVF provision in many. Where CCGs have come together, ICBs have often adopted the higher rate of provision, rather than the lowest level. That is to be welcomed, but by no means does it mean that the level of provision is where we want it to be. Some, but by no means all, ICBs, including in north-east London and Sussex—I declare an interest as a Sussex MP—are now fully compliant with the current NICE guidelines and the provision of three cycles. Others are improving their integrated offer, but some ICBs have kept their pre-existing local offer. That is not good enough, and we are aiming to tackle it.
Abena Oppong-Asare
What conversations has the Minister been having to make sure that ICBs are currently being updated to be as robust as possible?
Maria Caulfield
I will go through that. One of the first things we have done is to be transparent about what is being offered. We have asked every ICB—the whole 42—to detail their provision. We are now publishing that on gov.uk, so if ivf.gov.uk is entered, the table will come up. That illustrates the number of cycles offered by every ICB, the age provision, the previous children rule and what funding is offered for cryo-preservation. That is not just to say, “This is what’s on offer” so that women and couples can see what is available in their area; it is also the start of the process of holding ICBs’ feet to the fire—and for local MPs to be able to say, “Look, they’re offering free cycles in Sussex; why are we not offering that in our local area?”
Abena Oppong-Asare
The Minister may be about to get to this point, so I apologise if I have intervened too quickly. In terms of transparency, it is great that the Minister is publishing the data, but what are the Government doing to make sure that more work is being done by ICBs to provide a better—or adequate—service, given that publishing data does not require them to take any action?
Maria Caulfield
As the hon. Lady will know, it was only last year that we published the women’s health strategy. IVF was front and centre of that—the first year priority. Getting that information is the first step, and then we are able to look at the ICBs that are not offering the required level of service, have those conversations about why and have a step change to improve the offer. That is just one tool in our box to fulfil our ambition to end the postcode lottery for fertility treatment across England.
Colleagues have also raised the issue of lack of information about IVF, both for the public and healthcare professionals. We are working closely with NHS England to update the NHS website to make IVF more prominent, and also with the royal colleges to improve the awareness of IVF across healthcare professions. One area we are dealing with is that of add-ons, which the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) addressed. As part of our discussions with the HFEA, it now has the add-on rating system, so that people can see what percentage difference an add-on would make and make an informed choice about whether they want to do that as part of their IVF treatment.
I have also just received the HFEA’s report about modernising the legislation, with particular regard to its regulatory powers. That will cover the provision of add-ons, and I hope to be able to respond to the report as quickly as possible. We are making really big changes to some of the issues that have been holding back IVF for a long time. I know that for many people this is not quick enough, but I reassure hon. Members that progress is being made.
For female same-sex couples and same-sex couples across the board, I know that this is a really important matter. I took the position that it was unacceptable for female same-sex couples to shoulder an additional financial burden to access NHS-funded fertility treatment. On the transparency toolkit now on the gov.uk website, we can easily see which parts of the country are asking for six cycles of self-funded insemination, for instance. In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough it is 12 cycles, in Bristol and north Somerset it is 10. As the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) said, that is exactly the information we need so that we can tackle the issue head-on and directly with the ICBs. Indeed, one of our key commitments in the women’s health strategy was to remove this injustice once and for all. We were hoping to do that completely in the first year; it will in fact take us a little longer, but it will not take us 10 years.
Hannah Bardell
It is certainly comforting to hear that, but I urge the Minister to supercharge that work, so that female same-sex couples and, indeed, the trans community can make sure they can access that. Will the Minister say something about surrogacy, because I know that across the UK—though, again, we have somewhat better standards and access in Scotland—there are still major challenges, legal and otherwise, for male same-sex couples accessing surrogacy?
Maria Caulfield
The Law Commission has recently produced a report on changes to surrogacy, which we are in the process of responding to. It will address some of the issues raised today. The Government’s position is to abolish the requirement for female same-sex couples to undergo six cycles of self-funded treatment before they can access NHS-funded treatment. We have been clear that the NHS-funded pathway should now offer six cycles of artificial insemination followed by IVF to female same-sex couples, giving everyone access to NHS-funded fertility services. Some ICBs are doing that already, but others have delayed implementation, and that is what we want to focus on now. We are clear that that needs to be urgently addressed, because same-sex couples’ expectations have rightly been raised and the service has not met them swiftly enough. I take that on board from the debate today and reassure colleagues that that is a priority.
To accelerate action, NHS England is developing advice to assist ICBs. I hope they will be able to share that soon. I will share that with the House as soon as it is available. When it is published, we expect ICBs to update their local policies. There should be no further delay and no waiting for NICE guidelines when they are published next year. ICBs must urgently address all local inequalities in access to fertility treatment. There is a reason that IVF was made a priority in the women’s health strategy and a reason it was a priority in the first year.
Our health service pioneered the use of IVF in the 1970s. It is a great British invention that should be available to every couple who want to start a family, because the Government back women and families and the accessibility of IVF to those who need it. I look forward to the hon. Member for Jarrow continuing to hold my feet to the fire until we have delivered the change—deliver it we must.
Kate Osborne
I thank everyone for their valued contributions and support for this important issue. I am pleased to have been able to secure this debate ahead of National Fertility Awareness Week. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for an excellent contribution and for all the work she has done on fertility and employment practices, and for highlighting the disproportionate impact on black and minority ethnic women who need fertility treatment.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the start of this debate on a subject that is very important to me. I echo the concerns about the dangers of the current system, which may drive same-sex couples towards potentially unsafe methods, such as seeking sperm donors who might not be known to them. I have friends who have experienced that very thing. If not married or in a civil partnership, the donor will be considered the legal parent of any children, giving him rights over and responsibilities for the child. The safety of sperm is also a concern as the donor might be less likely to have their health and medical history fully screened, which is important.
Kate Osborne
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. In my contribution I touched on the unsafe and inappropriate online advances facing same-sex couples, which the hon. Member has just raised, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). Megan and Whitney told us yesterday of horrific, very detailed, explicit and inappropriate proposals that they have received online, and many other couples have reported the same. In 2023, we should not be forcing desperate women to turn to black market sperm and be pushed into tens of thousands of pounds of debt.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for describing the situation in Northern Ireland and adding to the concerns that I raised around the inappropriate use of BMI as a factor in deciding IVF provision, particularly how BMI is different for people with PCOS. I would add other conditions such as lipoedema. BMI is not an adequate measure to deny people IVF. Indeed, I believe that BMI is not an adequate measure in pretty much anything.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd for sharing her story, for highlighting financial risks taken and the concerns about regulatory practices in fertility clinics, and for her incredibly important private Member’s Bill.
Hannah Bardell
One other condition or disease that has not been spoken about is endometriosis. Endometriosis sufferers often have a terrible time conceiving and face significant challenges. I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that we must include them in all our conversations.
Kate Osborne
I absolutely agree that we should include those sufferers. The hon. Lady’s own contribution to the debate was incredibly powerful. She shared her personal story and pointed out how much better the situation is in Scotland, although improvements can always be made. She rightly pointed out that people are going abroad for treatment. TwoDads UK made that point eloquently in our briefing yesterday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) spoke about the need to end the postcode lottery, with that additional emotional and financial toll. I am pleased the Minister confirmed that she will remove discrimination against HIV as soon as possible through secondary legislation. I hope that “as soon as possible” means imminently and that we are not still talking about this in a year’s time.
The Minister mentioned the HFEA and changes to regulation. The 2021 guidelines for fertility clinics highlight the need for improved understanding of consumer law and how it applies to clinics and patients. The guidance significantly improves the availability of knowledge of the topic, but it still misses out conditions and vulnerabilities faced by same-sex couples and transgender people, so I look forward to receiving her update.
I am glad that the Minister welcomes me holding her feet to the fire on discrimination in provision for IVF. I will continue to do so. She said that it has taken a bit longer than she would like—but not 10 years. I want to see an urgent timeline from her. The inconsistency in IVF provision across the UK is unacceptable. We must end the postcode lottery for fertility treatment and the unacceptable financial burden on same-sex couples. As has been pointed out today, many women cannot wait any longer.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of IVF provision.
BBC Commissioning: Oversight
(1 year 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
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the oversight of BBC commissioning.
It is a joy to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I will start by using a number of quotes from the BBC that are directly relevant to the topic. On editorial integrity and independence, the BBC describes itself as
“independent of outside interests and arrangements that could undermine our editorial integrity. Our audiences should be confident that our decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.”
On fairness, the BBC says:
“Our output will be based on fairness, openness, honesty and straight dealing.”
Finally, on transparency, the BBC says:
“We will be transparent about the nature and provenance of the content we offer online. Where appropriate, we will identify who has created it and will use labelling to help online users make informed decisions about the suitability of content for themselves and their children.”
Those principles have been burning issues at the heart of the BBC for several years. For example, the salaries of the BBC’s highly paid employees were a closely guarded secret for a long time. That was indefensible even if some of those employees were not questioning others who were also paid out of the public purse, but the double standards jumped out at the viewing and listening public when they regularly probed others yet hid behind BBC executive decisions when asked about their own salaries. That position was gradually worn down, and now there is an annual disclosure without the mass exodus of talent that the corporation had used as a defence when it resisted disclosure.
Now that one issue of transparency regarding directly paid salaries has been largely resolved, we have the overlapping issue of payments made by the corporation for the commissioning of contracts, particularly when contracts are awarded to private companies owned or partially owned by several BBC presenters.
There is one player on the Northern Ireland commissioning pitch whose commissions have been paid millions of pounds in revenue for years. It is now nearly 10 years since the company Third Street Studios first received commissions. Third Street Studios was owned entirely by a BBC presenter, Mr Stephen Nolan, until last year, when a leading bookmaker in Northern Ireland became a person with significant influence in the company. According to the Belfast Telegraph, Stephen Nolan
“transferred all shares in his production company to a firm solely controlled by bookmaker Paul McLean.”
The director general of the BBC has indicated that he is favour of all the outside interests of employees being made public. Why would money earned by an employee who also has his own company, which bids for and gets numerous commissions for programmes, not also be disclosed?
The issue of fairness is relevant here, as a number of companies from the independent sector make excellent and innovative programmes but find it difficult to compete when, as regularly happens, a highly paid BBC employee gets commissions and is then able to advertise them on their own BBC radio programmes. That obviously puts someone from the independent sector at a disadvantage when the next round of bidding for commissioned programmes begins. If the BBC insider, due to excessive advertising on their own behalf, can point to good audience figures and claim they are best positioned to get yet another contract, the independent sector is likely to lose out.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. In previous debates I have raised a number of issues that were slightly different but nonetheless important. Does my hon. Friend agree that although there seems to be an unending budget for investigatory programming, the programming for diversity—in the form of Ulster-Scots programming or Christian shows and episodes—has been cut back beyond recognition? A rebalance of interest needs to take place. Does my hon. Friend accept that point, to which I have brought his attention in the past?
Mr Campbell
Yes, indeed. There has to be diversity in the range of directions that the BBC gets involved in. It is equally important that when programmes of the type my hon. Friend mentioned are commissioned, there needs to be transparency in how they are contracted and shown.
I have raised these issues previously, in debates on transparency in 2017 and on commissioning in 2019. In between those debates, I met senior BBC executives in both Belfast and London. I also met senior executives from the Audit Office and Ofcom to try to ensure that matters would be thoroughly investigated. Movement either ground to a halt or went exceptionally slowly. I get the impression that, just like with the salaries escapade, the BBC feels that if it can grind the process down, the issue will eventually go away. It did not manage that with salaries, and I intend to ensure that it does not with the commissioning of contracts. It is important that licence fee payers can see how much has been earned, the process followed, and how it is discharged—with the responsibility of oversight being within the ambit of the BBC.
On transparency, I understand the arguments about the commercial sensitivity of contracts, but what can the commercial sensitivities possibly be many years after a commission is broadcast? Even the Government have moved from a 30-year rule to a 20-year rule on the publication of documentation, but the BBC still seems to live in an age in which it believes we should never know how much it costs the licence fee payer to fund such an outstanding series as “The Fall”, which was filmed in Belfast and funded in part by Invest NI and Northern Ireland Screen. Series three was commissioned by the controller of BBC 2.
“The Fall” was sold in over 200 countries: in the United States via Netflix; in Australia via BBC First; in Canada via Bravo; in Latin America via DirecTV; in Brazil; in the Republic via RTÉ; across Asia via Fox international channels; and with a multi-territory deal in Germany. It had all the hallmarks of a tremendously successful project funded by the licence fee payer and carried out by the BBC. Why, then, are the details not available, as they are for any other publicly funded project? The commission was broadcast seven years ago and we still do not know how it was done.
The simple message I have for the BBC and the Government today is that if public money is used, every effort should be made to ensure that there is integrity in the system for spending it. Secrecy leads to suspicion; if there is nothing to hide, there should be no secrecy.
I come now to employees’ declarations of interest. Previously, I raised a case in which a BBC journalist in Northern Ireland was involved in presenting an investigative programme that was critical of elements of policing. After the programme was aired, I discovered that several years earlier the same journalist had been a serving police officer. She had appeared in court, had been bound over to be of good behaviour, and had left the police shortly after. That was an obvious case in which a BBC executive should have taken a prior decision about the suitability of someone like that fronting a programme that was “critical of policing”.
Viewers were of course unaware, at the time of the broadcast, of the journalist’s previous history. I mention that because similar types of issues could well emerge if commissioned programmes were to deal with, for example, the topical matter of addictive gambling and Premier League football clubs, many of which have huge gambling companies as sponsors on their shirts. How would a conflict of interest be handled if such issues were to be dealt with by a company in which a leading bookmaker had a controlling interest?
I come now to integrity. During the summer recess I was given a large volume of disturbing internal BBC material, including some from human resources and some text messages between production teams. Most seriously, I received a disturbing and alarming piece of information. The public need to have confidence in the commissioning process, because some of the processes are worth hundreds of thousands—indeed, in some cases millions—of pounds. We have to have confidence in the BBC’s internal processes when projects are awarded.
I have been given an account of a BBC internal process: an interview for a highly sought-after job in the production team for “The Stephen Nolan Show”. For context, this was a widely listened-to radio show in Northern Ireland at the time, and to work on the programme was a highly prized and much sought-after position. Indeed, a number of notable people in the Northern Ireland media sector applied for the role. Only one person was successful, while at least 10 internal and external candidates lost out.
But the process was rigged. It was not fair and lacked integrity, because the unsuccessful applicants did not necessarily lose out because they were unprepared for the interview process. They lost out because, unlike with the winning candidate, the presenter did not ring them up and give them the interview questions in advance, nor were they treated to a nice meal by the presenter before the interview.
A former BBC employee is prepared to come before this House and testify in Committee that Stephen Nolan corrupted a BBC recruitment process by giving one applicant the interview questions in advance and coaching them on how they should answer questions. I can further inform Members that in October 2018 this former employee wrote to the then BBC Northern Ireland director, Mr Peter Johnston, and told him about the corruption of the process. He is unaware of any investigation or action. The alarming thing is that that same Mr Peter Johnston now leads the investigation into the complaints against Russell Brand here in London.
This is appalling. These are not the actions of what was once a proud bastion of truth and integrity, informing, educating and entertaining without fear or favour. Truth and integrity demand a thorough investigation, with Government Ministers telling the director general that he needs to act, and he needs to act now.
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing the debate and on raising what are important matters. I know that he has campaigned on this issue for many years. I have read his previous debates and parliamentary questions on the subject, and he has been assiduous. In a number of areas, I have considerable sympathy with him. I have been overseeing the BBC for a very long time in one capacity or another, and a number of the issues he raised are ones on which I, too, campaigned.
There are three issues on which we have made great progress, and for which I would like to take some credit, but I absolutely recognise the hon. Gentleman’s role. All the issues relate to the area of commissioning. The first is the National Audit Office’s access to the BBC. The extent to which the NAO was able to examine the BBC’s financial accounts was limited for quite a long time. As he knows, the BBC argued strongly that the NAO should not be given full access, with a succession of what I regarded as somewhat spurious excuses, such as that it would somehow interfere with the BBC’s independence from the Government. Well, the BBC is independent of the Government, but that does not mean that the BBC should not be held to account for the fact that it spends a very large amount of public money in the form of the licence fee. I am glad that, in the charter, we ensured that the NAO had full access to the BBC accounts.
The second matter is on the commissioning of programming. Previously, the BBC produced 50% of its content in-house. It was subject to a quota for indie productions of 25%, and then there was something known in the trade as the window of creative competition, or WoCC, which was the remaining 25% that could be opened up to either BBC in-house production or the independent sector. We reached the agreement that the BBC should move towards opening up the entirety of its schedule to competition from BBC production and independent production. The BBC is on track to achieve 100%, I think by 2027, which has provided a huge boost to the independent production sector. It was very strongly welcomed at the time by the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, the body representing independent producers. Opening this up does mean that the BBC’s public money, through the licence fee, is being used to commission programmes from private companies. That obviously needs to be done in a transparent and accountable fashion, which is one of the requirements of the charter, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry quoted.
The third area, which we also addressed in the last charter renewal—I, too, have campaigned on this issue and the hon. Gentleman also raised it—is transparency over the payment of public money in the form of salaries to high-earning BBC employees. Initially, the BBC resisted very strongly, believing that it would make it harder for them to recruit and that it would somehow give an unfair advantage to their competitors, but eventually, the BBC agreed to this at a higher threshold than was ultimately introduced. Actually, the Prime Minister who appointed me to oversee the task, David Cameron, agreed to that higher threshold, but when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) became Prime Minister, she insisted on bringing it back down to £150,000. It has risen in line with inflation, so I think the figure for the publication of salaries is now £178,000.
The publication had an unforeseen consequence, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned. When I insisted on the publication of information about individuals earning high salaries, for the reasons that he gave, I did so on the basis that I thought it right that the licence fee payer should know where large amounts of the money were going. We did not realise that it would also expose the shocking gender pay gap between the salaries of men and women doing essentially the same jobs at the BBC. It had the consequence of making the BBC address that issue as well, and that was a very good demonstration of why transparency is so important.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the way in which the BBC has to publish the names of its employees directly earning money over a certain threshold, but a number of people obtain payment from the Government through the intermediary of a private production company—a number of individuals have set that up. I agree with him that it is not entirely satisfactory that one person who earns a large amount of money from the BBC has their name published, and another does not, just because the way in which the BBC pays them is done through a slightly different route. I hope that is something we will continue to look at. I raised the issue when I was chairing the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, and I have raised it since, and I hope the BBC will continue to look at ways in which it can increase transparency, which is the right way forward.
The charter increased the level of independent oversight of the BBC by bringing in Ofcom as an independent regulator. We have a system whereby complaints about the BBC go first to the BBC, but can then be escalated to Ofcom. The Government does not get involved in that process. I think that is right, and for that reason, I cannot directly respond to some of the hon. Gentleman’s specific complaints. Those are for the BBC to examine. I agree that he has raised some important matters that I hope the BBC will look at, and indeed that Ofcom could investigate as well.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware, as is written into the charter, that the Government said there would be a review of the governance arrangements—called the mid-term review—that needs to be completed by 2024. We will publish the outcome of that very soon actually. While I cannot reveal that at this stage, I can say that one of the areas that has been raised with the Government a number of times, and which the hon. Gentleman raised again today, is the way in which the BBC has dealt with complaints and the fact that so few have been upheld. The Government’s view is that that process needs to be strengthened. We will have more to say about how we believe it can be strengthened—the BBC has agreed that it should be strengthened—when we publish the mid-term review.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am grateful for the Minister’s attendance and for what he has just shared. A perception arising from some issues that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) raised is that some people in the BBC are too popular to be criticised, too successful to be touched, and too important in the ratings game to have issues raised about their conduct. Some of the points that my hon. Friend made touch on questionable, if not corruptible, practices around commissioning and around individuals and their behaviour. The Minister is right that Ofcom is there for when the BBC has completed its investigations, but Ofcom looks very particularly at regulatory matters. He mentioned the ongoing review, but can he give us any assurance that there will be a level of stringent and independent oversight in the BBC and through its management structure, so that when such issues are raised, which touch on malpractice or questionable practice around the allocation of financing and the commissioning of resources, the public and we all know there is integrity in the process of investigating them?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree that nobody who is in receipt of public money or who holds a senior position in a publicly owned and publicly funded organisation should be exempt from scrutiny to make sure that they are carrying out their functions properly, and that any concerns around that need to be investigated.
As for whether anybody is too popular or too senior to be examined or held to account, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the highest-paid BBC employee is Gary Lineker, and there has been quite a lot of controversy over some of his remarks. That is absolutely right and, as a consequence, the BBC has recently carried out a further consideration of their social media guidelines for highly paid staff and has brought those into play, partially as a result of some of those controversies. That matter is very different from the kind of issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. They relate to allegations that have been received about possible corrupt behaviour, and, obviously, that would also need to be investigated. The particular show that he referred to is presented by the fourth highest-paid person at the BBC. That, again, is another reason why a large amount of public money is spent, and we need to be satisfied.
As I said, this is not a matter that the Government can or should investigate, but there are independent bodies that do so. The first port of call I suggest the Gentleman might talk to is the BBC board member for Northern Ireland, Mr Michael Smyth. He was recently appointed and has taken up his post. Part of his role is to oversee the BBC’s activities in Northern Ireland, as well as to act as a member of the board as a whole. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will draw his concerns to Mr Smyth’s attention, and also take advantage of the BBC first complaints process.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the individual who runs the editorial standards and guidelines committee, but there are also independent board members who sit on that committee. He could certainly draw his concerns to their attention. Ultimately, as we have discussed, the NAO has full access under the charter. If there are concerns about the way in which public money has been spent, that, too, is a matter that the NAO could investigate.
I do not in any way suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not raised some serious concerns; I hope they will be examined to his satisfaction. I think he is best placed to pursue them through the routes that I have suggested, but I am grateful to him for raising these matters this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Future of the NHS
(1 year 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
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the NHS.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful for having been granted this debate, and I thank Members for attending.
The highly respected professor of epidemiology and public health Sir Michael Marmot said earlier this year:
“If you had the hypothesis that the Government was seeking to destroy the national health service—if that were your hypothesis—all the data that we’re seeing are consistent with that hypothesis.”
When asked if we are stumbling or sleepwalking towards a privatised healthcare system, he added:
“I have no special insight into what motivates Ministers, but they are not behaving as if they want to preserve our NHS”.
A few months ago, Professor Philip Banfield, the British Medical Association’s chair of council, said:
“This government has to demonstrate that it is not setting out to destroy the NHS, which it is failing to do at this point in time…It is a very common comment that I hear, from both doctors and patients, that this government is consciously running the NHS down.”
Professor Banfield also commented that the NHS is in a state of “managed decline” because recent Governments have made “a conscious political decision” to deny it adequate resources and not to tackle staff shortages. I think that he is absolutely right.
Legislative change brought in by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government in 2012, and by the Conservatives in 2022, fragmented the NHS and increased opportunities for privatisation. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 allowed NHS foundation trusts to, in effect, earn 49% of their income from treating private patients, and the Health and Care Act 2022 allows representatives of private companies to sit on integrated care partnerships and so play a part in preparing the integrated care strategy for an area, influencing where huge sums of public money will be spent.
It is underfunding, however, that is proving to be the Conservatives’ greatest tactic when it comes to undermining the NHS. The report “The Rational Policy-Maker’s Guide to the NHS”, published in July by The 99% Organisation, presents statistics based on research by Appleby and Gainsbury on the average annual change in per capita health spending by UK Governments since 1979, adjusted for population and demographic factors. The stark differences in commitment to the NHS along party lines are clear to see.
Under Labour between 1997 and 2010, there was an average annual increase in per capita health spending of 5.67%. Between 2010 and 2015, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government oversaw an average annual reduction of 0.07%. Between 2015 and 2021, under the Conservatives, there was an average annual reduction of 0.03%. This Conservative Government’s committed spend up to 2024 represents an average annual increase of just 2.05%.
Put simply, Labour in government has increased per capita health spending on average significantly more than Conservative Governments. Public satisfaction levels have reflected the success of that approach. Public satisfaction in the NHS was at its highest, at 70%, in 2010, the year Labour left office. In 2022, after over a decade of Conservative government, it fell to a record low of 29%. It is no coincidence that satisfaction plummeted following more than a decade of the Conservatives’ being in power and failing to give the NHS the funding it needs.
“The Rational Policy-Maker’s Guide to the NHS” uses respected international data produced by the Commonwealth Fund in 2014 to show that, among the countries studied, the UK’s has often been the best-ranked healthcare system for effectiveness, equity and efficiency. The report also demonstrates how the UK’s spending on healthcare, which by 2009 had caught up with that of many of our peers, has drifted back far below the average for a developed-world country. For example, we spend less as a percentage of GDP than Canada, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Our spending has not kept pace with the combination of inflation, population growth and population ageing. If we continue to underspend, performance will continue to be poor. Nigel Edwards, the chief executive of the Nuffield Trust, points out in the foreword to the report that
“the inability of too many of those in policy-making circles to recognise that underfunding the NHS—quite apart from any moral arguments against it—is not an economically sustainable strategy. Since 2010, the focus has been containing expenditure; the results of this are now very evident”.
The report asserts that
“the fundamental business model of the UK NHS is better than that of any other in a high-income country,”
and it puts forward the view that
“the rational strategy is to recommit to the fundamental model of the NHS, fund it properly and introduce operational improvements over time”.
That makes a great deal of sense.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The hon. Lady is saying that more money needs to be put into the NHS. It is receiving record investment this year—more than it has in its history. Where does she anticipate that extra money coming from? Does she want to move money from other Departments into the NHS, or to increase taxation, or to increase borrowing?
Margaret Greenwood
First, in challenging the hon. Gentleman’s opening remark, I refer him to the point earlier in my speech when I spoke about the Government’s current spending commitment. I also ask him to listen to the rest of my speech, as I will come on to the economy.
It is not the fundamental model of the NHS that is broken; it is the fact that it has been underfunded that has led to us to where we are now. As is clear for all to see, we are at a point of crisis. Waiting lists for routine treatments recently hit a record high of 7.75 million, with more than 9,000 people waiting for more than 18 months. It is truly devastating that last year, more than 120,000 people in England died while on NHS waiting lists for hospital treatment. That is double the number who died in 2017-18. There are over 125,000 staffing vacancies, including more than 43,000 vacancies in nursing and more than 10,000 medical staff vacancies. Many of the staff who are in post are burned out, with not enough colleagues to work alongside them.
The “Fit for the Future” report published by the Royal College of General Practitioners last autumn revealed that the situation in primary care is dire. It found that 42% of GPs in England are either likely or very likely to leave the profession over the next five years. As of August 2023, there were 27,246 fully qualified full-time equivalent GPs in England, 3.1% less than in 2019 and 7.4% less than in 2015. That downward trend simply cannot go on.
Last week, the Care Quality Commission rated almost two thirds of maternity services in England either “inadequate” or “requires improvement” for the safety of care and said:
“The overarching picture is one of a service and staff under huge pressure.”
Cancer Research UK has pointed out that cancer waiting time targets continue to be missed in England, and recent months have seen some of the worst performances on record.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
With regard to cancer waiting lists, the Rutherford Cancer Centre, a specialist proton beam centre in my constituency, has been lying idle for almost two years, since Rutherford centres across the country went into liquidation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the NHS should take control of the Rutherford centres, and that that in itself would help to reduce waiting lists for cancer treatment?
Margaret Greenwood
I am not familiar with the centre that my hon. Friend speaks of, but I do believe that the NHS should control the assets and make sure that the service is there for people when they need it. I would like to hear more about the centre from him at another time.
By deliberately underfunding the NHS, the Conservatives have undermined it as a comprehensive, universal public service. Their desire to privatise the NHS has been evident for a very long time. It is a shocking agenda to essentially destroy our most cherished institution.
This determination to dismantle the NHS, which has been proven to be a world leader in terms of effectiveness, equity and efficiency, is not only immensely damaging to patients and the staff who work in the service, but damaging to the economy. Last year, an estimated 185.6 million working days were lost because of sickness or injury—a record high. Similarly, the Office for Budget Responsibility reported in July that the 15 to 64-year-old economic inactivity rate
“has increased in the UK by 0.5 percentage points”
since the covid pandemic.
Daniel Kawczynski
The hon. Lady is being very disparaging about the private sector. Has she ever worked in the private sector?
Margaret Greenwood
I have not worked in the health service in the private sector—
Margaret Greenwood
I did write a book once, and the publisher was a private organisation. I am not disparaging the private sector. The point I am making is that the national health service is a public service.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make another intervention, then he can try to do so. If the hon. Lady—
Daniel Kawczynski
The question is simple: has she ever worked in the private sector?
Margaret Greenwood
The answer, clearly, is yes, I have. What I am talking about is the national health service, which was set up as a public service—publicly run and publicly owned. That is what we are talking about here today. I am going to make more progress. [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene, he can.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Let me say something for the orderliness of the debate. Understandably, emotions run high around NHS issues, but there is a convention and there are protocols. If people want to make contributions they can make interventions or speeches, but Members may intervene only if the hon. Lady wants to take their intervention. I just caution everybody that I will not have any unruliness in this debate. The debate has been tabled and the hon. Lady’s constituents have a right to be heard.
Margaret Greenwood
Thank you, Mr Pritchard.
I was talking about ill health being a big factor behind inactivity in the labour market, and I will repeat a point. The Office for Budget Responsibility reported in July that the economic inactivity rate for 15 to 64-year-olds has increased in the UK by 0.5 percentage points since the covid pandemic, and ill health has consistently been a bigger factor behind inactivity in the UK than in most other advanced economies. The Government must understand that a Government that fails the NHS fails the wider economy.
As well as focusing on the importance of investing in the NHS for the good of the economy, the Government must focus on tackling poverty and inequality, not only as a matter of social justice but because we know that poverty is a key cause of ill health. As the King’s Fund has noted, poverty
“drives inequality in health outcomes and increases use of health services.”
In its recent research on the state of child poverty, the charity Buttle UK said that it had received some of the most distressing accounts of children in need that it had ever seen. Buttle was keen to stress that it was
“talking not just about significant hardship but life-changing and life-limiting deep poverty.”
Today we read that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that more than 1 million children in the UK experienced destitution last year, meaning that their families could not afford to feed, clothe or clean them adequately, or keep them warm. This extreme hardship will have a profound impact on the individuals concerned and it will lead to greater demands on the NHS. The King’s Fund points out that
“poverty is...expensive, in direct costs to the state and in lost opportunity and productivity.”
We need to see a virtuous cycle of improvement when it comes to addressing poverty, funding the NHS and supporting economic growth. Sadly, under this Government we are seeing the reverse. Will the Minister take up this issue of the inter-relationship between poverty, NHS provision and the economy with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and with the Chancellor, and impress on them the importance of significantly increasing funding for the NHS and tackling the deep poverty faced by many people in our constituencies? The Chancellor will have the opportunity with his autumn statement to increase spending in the NHS, and to tackle poverty and inequality, and I ask the Minister to urge him to do that.
The impact of the Government’s squeeze on funding is being felt throughout the NHS. In May, it was reported that integrated care systems will have to make average efficiency savings of almost 6% to meet their financial requirements. According to the Health Service Journal, one integrated care board said of its financial plan for 2023-24:
“We do not have confidence that we can deliver it in full but are committed to trying.”
Sir Julian Hartley, the chief executive of NHS Providers, has described
“the efficiency challenge for 2023-24”
as being
“significantly harder than 2022-23”,
while one ICS director described their system as running out of the non-recurrent savings that made balancing the books last year “vaguely possible”. It is clear that the Government are simply not giving the NHS the necessary funding to meet the needs of patients.
Before I conclude, I want to pay tribute to those who work in the national health service. As I have touched on, many of them are exhausted because of the staffing shortages and many work beyond the end of their shifts because there are not enough staff to take over from them at handover times. They do so because they care deeply about the welfare of their patients.
I will specifically mention clinical support workers in my constituency in Wirral, who are currently on strike over back pay to recognise the years that they have been working above their pay band. I have joined them on the picket line in solidarity and listened to their concerns. They are immensely hard-working people who care deeply about their patients, and they deserve fair back pay that reflects the additional duties that they have been carrying out. I urge their employer, Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, to continue engaging with the union, Unison, and to provide an offer that is acceptable to it and to staff.
What is the future of the NHS? I believe that the NHS faces an existential threat from the Government’s privatisation agenda and underfunding of the service. Patients and staff continue to suffer. There are further potential implications for staff as a result of the 2022 Act, not least the provision to remove professions from statutory regulation. The new NHS payment scheme contains rules for payment mechanisms, one of which is “local payment arrangements”, whereby
“providers and commissioners locally agree an appropriate payment approach.”
There are real concerns that that will impact national pay bargaining and the scope of “Agenda for Change”. Can the Minister give a commitment that the NHS payment scheme has not had and will not have any negative impact on the pay rates of “Agenda for Change”, pensions and other terms and conditions of all eligible NHS staff? Can he also commit to protecting national collective bargaining across the NHS? I appreciate that there is a lot of detail here; I would really like it if the Minister wrote to me on this point.
Without such a commitment, I fear that we could see a race to the bottom in the pay, terms and conditions of NHS staff, and so too an erosion of the quality of healthcare that we as patients receive over time. We need a Labour Government that will, among other things, improve GP access, boost mental health support, train thousands of extra staff every year, provide mental health support in every school and hubs in every community, and reform social care with a national care service. The next Government must also significantly increase health spending each year. History tells us that this works. It works in terms of the equity, efficiency and effectiveness of the NHS, and it works in terms of public satisfaction.
The NHS is arguably our country’s greatest achievement. We know that it is there for us, free at the point of use, if we become ill or have an accident—or at least it should be. Under the Conservatives, the service is being decimated, but there is still time for them to change tack, turn the situation around and give the NHS the funding it needs. Will the Minister impress upon the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the importance of boosting investment in the NHS so that the needs of patients can be met and the economy can draw on a healthy workforce? Will he also call on the Secretary of State to be ambitious in his dealings with the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement?
Finally, I want to thank health campaigners across the country who are fighting to save our NHS from privatisation and obliteration. I thank them for all that they do to fight for an NHS that is a comprehensive, universal, publicly owned and publicly run service that is there for all of us when we need it. People believe in the NHS, and I believe it is vital that we save it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Anna Firth, could hon. Members check that their mobiles are switched off? There is one on at the moment that is receiving messages.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on securing this important debate. I want to put on record straightaway my thanks to all the hard-working hospital and ambulance staff at Southend Hospital, and to everybody working in the NHS across Southend and Leigh-on-Sea—they do a fantastic job.
I want to start with the question of money. I do not agree at all with the characterisation of this Government as one that does not invest in the NHS. This Government are putting record investment into our NHS. Using the latest figures for which we have comparable international data—I noticed that the hon. Lady was selective about the years she chose—public spending on healthcare in this country totalled £177 billion in 2018-19, the equivalent of 8% of GDP. That is more than both the OECD and EU14 averages. Healthcare spending has only gone up since then. We are now spending £182 billion, amounting to £3,409 for every man, woman and child in 2022. This is simply not a Government who are not investing in their NHS.
I think we would all accept that reform is always welcome. Any attempts to talk about reform are generally met by the Opposition with accusations of privatisation or of needing to spend yet more money. I cannot help but observe that the hon. Member for Wirral West does not disappoint: we have heard both those accusations this afternoon. Let me give a recent quote from a senior politician:
“The reason I want to reform the health service is…I want to preserve it. I think if we don’t reform the health service we will be in managed decline”.
I hope that the hon. Lady recognises those words, as they are the words of her own party leader.
This is what people get from a Conservative Government. It is a Conservative Government who have funded the NHS more and who promise reform, and that is the way we will get better outcomes for all our constituents. One thing I will say, though, is that that investment must make its way down to our individual hospitals and NHS services.
That brings me to my first point. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware that £118 million of capital investment was promised to South Essex hospitals in 2017. The lion’s share—£52 million—of that was earmarked for Southend Hospital. The Minister is also aware that I have raised this issue—I have termed it the missing millions—in Parliament 10 times and with Ministers on numerous other occasions. It is utterly incredible that here we are, more than six years later, and that money has still not, finally, made its way down to my local trust.
Daniel Kawczynski
Is my hon. Friend aware that the state-run, socialist model of the NHS has meant that despite my local NHS trust in Shropshire securing more than £312 million for modernisation of A&E services seven years ago, construction has still not started in Shropshire? The socialists believe in state-controlled services, but they are the most inefficient imaginable.
Anna Firth
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. It is how we get the investment through the state bureaucracy that is so important. I thank the Minister very much indeed for his support last year, when I secured an advance payment of £8 million, which is already going towards improvements at Southend’s emergency department in preparation for the winter. But I stress once again, using the famous words of Cuba Gooding Jr that I have already said in the main Chamber but have not yet said in this one: when, please, are the Government going to “show me the money”, because Southend Hospital and Southend residents deserve it?
I want to move on to the future of the NHS. The focus has to be on prevention and on community care. The old adage that prevention is better than cure is clearly the way forward, and I want to focus on some examples from Southend. I recently visited the fracture clinic at Southend Hospital, which is about to launch a new fracture liaison service next spring. That will be the first FLS in the UK to focus across one area: it will be a consistent service, providing consistent care, across Mid and South Essex. The figures show that, over five years, the FLS will help to prevent 550 fractures, save the trust £472,000 and also save 1,300 bed days every year. Every single pound that the NHS is investing in the FLS will save £3.26 for our NHS. Outstanding, groundbreaking, innovative services like that are the future of our NHS, and I will just remark again that it started in Southend West.
The second thing that I want to talk to the Minister about is community pharmacies, which already save 619,000 GP appointments every week; roughly 32 million appointments are saved per year. We must continue to move services out of secondary care and into the community, and community pharmacies are a perfect example. We have the brilliant Belfairs Pharmacy and French’s pharmacy in my constituency. Both are run by an inspirational pharmacist, Mr Mohamed Fayyaz Haji, known to us as Fizz. The Minister will be well aware of everything that community pharmacies can do, but Fizz provides cholesterol and blood pressure checks, health advice, prescribing, ear syringing, community phlebotomy, earlier diagnosis measures such as measuring prostate-specific antigen levels, electrocardiograms, and ultrasound screening for sports injuries and pregnant women. That is a model for community pharmacy around the country, which, again, has to be the future of our NHS.
The final point that I want to talk about is hospice care and care homes. In Southend West we have an average age that is 20% higher than England’s as a whole. The triple whammy of people living longer but not necessarily in good health, coupled with more and more people working full time, means that good quality nursing care and end-of-life treatment will increasingly become a necessity for all of us.
Hospices such as Havens Hospices in Southend perform an incredibly compassionate service for our community, which is incredibly good value. They could play a vital role in reducing pressure on the NHS. They are an exemplar, and the NHS should look at the hospice service and learn from it, just as it should look and learn from brilliant care homes such as Cavell Lodge, which is managed by Michael Daley.
Regrettably, awareness of the role and value of our hospices and care homes often does not come until the point that it is needed. Hospices in particular are funded primarily, as the Minister knows, through charitable giving. Havens Hospices need £124,000 each week to provide their services. Overall, UK hospices are budgeting for a deficit of £186 million per year. Hospices save the NHS money in the long term by reducing pressures on hospital beds, ensuring our hospice sector—I would also add our care sector—not only survives but thrives. It is a win-win for all us.
I do not believe that more money is the answer or has to be the future of the NHS. A focus on prevention, on more care in the community and on an integrated health service that takes full advantage of the learnings available in the charitable and sometimes private sector can provide solutions to reduce pressure on the frontline services. All of that is deliverable, but only a Conservative Government will deliver it.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Given the interest in this debate, I will impose a six-minute time limit. I call Marie Rimmer.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for securing this vital debate today. I also wish to pay tribute to all those who work in St Helens South and Whiston hospitals and those who work in social care for St Helens Borough Council, as well as all the other agencies—police, housing—involved in our health and social care integrated service.
Our NHS is struggling: waiting lists are far too long; cancer survival rates are too low; and too many patients are kept in hospital when they could be, and want to be, at home. None of that can be fixed unless the NHS and social care is staffed to adequate levels. Right now that is not the case. Far too many medical professionals who are trained here are leaving the service. Not enough doctors and nurses are being trained here at home. That is a problem not just for recruitment but for retention.
Recruiting new staff is not good enough if the experienced are leaving. That is true of most professions, yet for some reason the Government are not doing more to retain the skills and expertise we so badly need. It takes years to train a doctor. Once they leave the NHS, they take their years of training and expertise with them. Instead, the Government try to plug the gaps by spending £3 billion a year on temporary or agency staff. A short-term solution to a long-term problem does not work. The UK is left with fewer practising physicians and nurses per person than the EU average.
One way the Government are attempting to fill the gap is by hiring physician associates, who are expected to perform duties similar to a doctor’s without the required training. Physician associates are not empowered to prescribe, so doctors are charged with the duty of prescribing for the patients. That is one of the many problems that our NHS faces caused by the workforce crisis. The remedy to the crisis is a two-pronged approach. First and foremost, the number of medical school places needs to be dramatically increased. The same needs to be done for nursing and midwifery clinical placements. The only sensible and viable long-term solution to the NHS staffing crisis is to train more homegrown professionals and to value them. Medical school placements need to be prioritised in current understaffed areas to help reduce the health inequality that exists across our country, which covid tragically put a spotlight on. Any long-term NHS workforce strategy needs to address that issue.
The second part of the approach needs to be retention. There is no better short-term solution than to keep as many trained medical professionals in the NHS as possible, yet this is more than just a short-term solution. Keeping experienced and skilled staff in the NHS helps us both now and in the future, and is about more than simply money. The general working terms and conditions, whether that is work-life balance, job flexibility or pension allowance, need looking at.
Yes, it costs money to improve the living standards and working lives of our medical professionals. What costs more money is having to recruit temporary or agency staff to plug the staffing gaps and losing the existing expertise in the workforce. What costs more money is having to send patients to private appointments due to lack of NHS staff.
Our doctors deserve respect. The title “junior doctor” can be misleading to the public. Junior doctors are trained professionals who could have 10 years, or up to 20 years, under their belts. The term “junior doctor” does not give doctors the respect they deserve with their skills and experience. Adopting the use of “postgraduate doctor” or another term would be more befitting and give doctors more of the respect they rightly deserve. The Government should be speaking to those doctors to find out how to improve their working conditions.
Believe me, I was horrified when I learned of the working conditions, and I thought I knew quite a bit about health. In some hospitals, the NHS staff—doctors—are lucky if they have a mess like a sixth form might have. Surely our doctors are worth more than that. Solving the NHS workforce crisis cannot just be a one-off solution. There needs to be continuous assessment of our future needs as a country, so we do not find ourselves in this situation again.
It takes years to train medical professionals, so the Government must plan continuously and years in advance. That is what a Labour Government will do; Labour will provide the short-term solutions along with a long-term strategy to ensure our NHS is never in the state that the current Government have driven it to. Looking after the health of the nation must be the top priority of any Government; looking after the health and wellbeing of all NHS staff is simply a must.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I pay tribute to the doctors, nurses, porters, kitchen staff and many other hard-working people at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, who do an outstanding job for my constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham. My concerns are with management of the NHS trust and the chief executive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and I, with others, secured £312 million seven years ago—the biggest investment in the NHS in Shropshire for decades—for the modernisation and reconfiguration of A&E services.
All Members of Parliament will recognise that there is nothing more important for their constituents than the safety and care of their families when they go to A&E. Imagine: we secured £312 million for that modernisation of our local hospital trust seven years ago, and still not a single brick has been laid. Those were not proposals envisaged by politicians or Ministers, but by 300 local surgeons, who were at the forefront of championing this modernisation and reconfiguration. Those 300 local surgeons are at the coalface of providing those services every day to our constituents. Yet, the NHS trust has allowed itself to be bullied by the Labour leader of Telford and Wrekin Council to prevent the changes taking place.
The Labour leader of the council does not have a single medical qualification, yet under the society we live in he can prevent those changes, which are propagated as being absolutely essential by local surgeons at the coalface of providing those services. There is no comprehension of the interdependence between these two hospitals for citizens across the whole of Shropshire and mid-Wales. Let us not forget that in Shropshire—you are a Shropshire MP and will know this, Mr Pritchard—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. For the record, while I am chairing, I am completely neutral. I take the hon. Member’s point, but this is a generic debate. He is talking about specifics, and the Chair is completely neutral.
Daniel Kawczynski
Yes. These two hospitals, 12 miles apart, cover the whole of Shropshire and mid-Wales, yet the Labour leader of Telford and Wrekin Council refuses to recognise their interdependence. No decision has been taken by the trust for seven years. I have attended hundreds of meetings with the local trust over that time to find out when it will finally take the decision to start construction. “It’s coming”, “It’s just around the corner” and “It’s nearly there”—that is what we have heard for the past seven years. That lack of accountability and transparency would never be tolerated in the private sector, and I speak as somebody who spent 13 years working in the private sector before becoming a Member of Parliament.
There is a massive turnaround of staff at the local NHS trust. I think I am on my seventh or eighth chief executive; there is no accountability, transparency or sense of urgency. Meanwhile, A&E services continue to deteriorate in our local hospital trust. Shropshire Community Health NHS Trust and Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust are the worst performing A&E trusts in the whole United Kingdom. As a Member of Parliament, I get heartbreaking letters from constituents about the difficulties that their family members have experienced in our local A&E services, because that £312 million has not been spent and implemented.
I speak as the only Conservative Member of Parliament to have been born in a communist country, where the state controlled everything. That is what my antipathy to this state control is rooted in. The socialist model created in the 1940s leads to inefficiency, poor value for money and corruption. We need to create the right regulatory and taxation framework to allow the private sector to thrive in this country. I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood); we need to allow private sector hospitals to thrive and to take on the NHS, and ultimately say to citizens, “If you need an operation, we will send you to a private hospital and pay for your operation there.” We cannot continue to allow this level of negligence, corruption and inefficiency, with £130 billion into the NHS just this year alone and horrendous outcomes. We need privatisation and competition for the NHS.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for securing this important debate and for her tireless defence of the NHS. This year we celebrate 75 years of the NHS. It is the greatest achievement of this country and of the Labour party: delivering a universal healthcare system based on need, not profit. We know the fight for this system is now existential. Thirteen years of austerity and the systematic defunding of public services have left our communities facing abject poverty and inequalities—conditions not dissimilar to those of the 1940s when the NHS was first introduced. Health inequalities are rampant and growing: children living in poverty are now diagnosed with Victorian diseases, life expectancy is falling for the first time in recent memory, children’s height is now reducing year on year, and chronic ill health, both physical and mental, is increasing. Systematic underfunding, private sector plundering, decades of privatisation via the back door and the fragmentation of diagnostics and treatment services have brought the NHS to its knees.
Before the NHS existed, there was a complex, fragmented and chaotic patchwork of services. This led to poor and inconsistent practices motivated by profit, rather than best practice. This is the direction in which many on the Government Benches are now pushing, with demands for a public-private partnership and insurance-based funding models—the privatisation of sections of the health service being touted under the guise of reform. It did not work then, and it will not work now. The evidence is clear: health services are of a better quality, more equitable and more cost-effective when nationally planned and provided by democratically accountable public bodies with expertise.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has talked about the benefits of the private sector. I want to point out that Carillion, which was building an NHS hospital in Liverpool, went bust. This had a significant impact on the delivery of services to my constituency of Liverpool, Riverside.
We must repeal the Health and Care Act 2022 and reverse and eliminate the US-style integrated care systems which enable corporate influence over policy and profiteering, at the expense of patient care and workers’ pay. We must tackle health inequalities head on and push back attempts to establish a two-tier health system, which would only entrench these inequalities yet further. We must completely abolish the private sector in the delivery of NHS services and instead restore much needed funding levels, with a serious programme to recruit and retain the staff needed to end the exodus of NHS staff.
Only with this bold action to restore the fundamental model of the NHS—universal provision free at the point of need—can we once again make the NHS a world-leading institution. I will end by thanking all the hard-working staff across the NHS services in my constituency of Liverpool, Riverside.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for securing such an important debate.
The NHS was set up in 1948. It was the first of its kind in the western world, leading the way for free medical care—what a great achievement. So many societies still wish that they had what we have.
As has been said by other hon. Members, we have already had 13 years of the Conservatives leading the way—unfortunately with much failure and neglect. We do not have enough doctors or nurses, there are long waiting lists for appointments, and primary care is also not what it should be. People are finding it very difficult to get a GP appointment, there are no NHS dentists, and even pharmacies are really struggling to ensure they have enough medicines to give to people. In addition, mental health services remain the poor relative to the NHS. Under this Government, there has never been enough investment in NHS mental health services.
I will focus my remarks, conversations and questions on the future of the NHS for sickle cell patients. Sickle cell disease is a serious condition which predominantly occurs in people with African and Caribbean backgrounds, and approximately 15,000 to 18,000 people live with it. It has been two years since the “No One’s Listening” report was published by the Sickle Cell Society, which found evidence of serious failings. Failings were found in acute services, and there was evidence of attitudes “underpinned by racism”, meaning that patients were not treated with care. They were ignored, often not believed, and not given the pain relief and oxygen they needed. Unfortunately, we have seen many fatalities because of this.
In January, the NHS Race and Health Observatory found that sickle cell patients undergoing a crisis were deprioritised and undermined. This is in keeping with the “No One’s Listening” report, which presented evidence regarding the death of Evan Nathan Smith in North Middlesex University Hospital in April 2019. The inquest found that Evan’s death would not have happened if it were not for failings in the care that he received. It is shocking every time I say that and every time I mention that.
I have worked with Government Ministers, the NHS and other important bodies to get implemented in full the recommendations that have come out of the “No One’s Listening” report. I ask the Minister to go further and to focus more on those recommendations. If we are looking at the public purse, which has been mentioned a few times in this Chamber, we see that it is more cost-effective to put in preventative measures that help and support people to not get into a crisis where they need to be in hospital.
I therefore ask the Minister: will the NHS develop individual care plans in partnership with the sickle cell patient? Will all NHS trusts require haematology teams to be told when a sickle cell patient accesses outpatient or inpatient care? Will the Minister instruct all integrated care systems to develop plans to provide community care in this area? Will the Minister ensure specialist training opportunities for nurses? Will the Department co-ordinate work between organisations and senior sickle cell service representatives to engage in effective workforce planning for sickle cell services?
If the Minister cannot answer all of those questions towards the end of this debate, I ask him to put it in writing, to do his best, and to also attend the all-party parliamentary group on sickle cell and thalassaemia, which I chair.
Janet Daby
The Minister is nodding, so I take that as an indication that he is willing to do that, which is really good. I also implore him to consider that sickle cell is a long-life disease, a hidden disease, a disability, and very serious.
The disease, however, has not had the research funding that it really needs. Looking at people with cystic fibrosis and haemophilia, we that they have had so much more funding invested into medicines to improve the treatment of those illnesses. The National Institute for Health and Care Research funds research programmes, but sickle cell research is woefully inadequate compared with the diseases that I have already mentioned. According to the data produced by that organisation, approximately 18,000 people are living with sickle cell, compared with the 10,000 that are living with cystic fibrosis, but in 2017-18 over a million pounds more was spent on research for cystic fibrosis. In the present day, 2022-23, still over a million pounds more is being spent on research for cystic fibrosis compared with sickle cell. That is entirely unacceptable, especially when there are more people living with sickle cell. I do not wish to take away funding from other research, but I do want equality of funding. I am sure the Minister also wants this as well.
As I draw to a close, I have already mentioned that prevention has to be the ultimate way to help people live a good quality of life and to keep them out of hospital, and it also helps to take of care of the public purse. In conclusion, the NHS is a wonderful creation that has helped every single person in this Chamber, and indeed every single person in our country.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I am afraid that we are going to have to restrict the last two Back Bench contributions to five minutes each.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. The NHS is one of our country’s defining achievements. From the ashes of the second world war, we built a world-leading health service, delivering free care at the point of use for everyone in the country. My points today are going to focus on waiting times, dentistry and the link to social care.
In recent years, this grand vision has been steadily eroded. More and more people are struggling to get the care they need, and waiting lists continue to spiral. As of two weeks ago, 7.75 million people were on NHS waiting lists. Nearly 9,000 people in England are estimated to have been waiting more than 18 months to start their treatment, while the number of people waiting for more than a year was just under 400,000. I can think of specific examples. I represent over 75,000 people in my part of Devon, one of whom is David Crompton from near Bampton. David is a deer farmer, and he needs to be mobile to do his job. He needs a knee replacement. He wants to be useful to the economy and to society, but he has been told that it will probably be two years before he gets a knee replacement.
With cancer waiting times, the situation is little better. Every single cancer waiting time target was missed, and ambulance and A&E waiting times increased. This is a shocking situation, which will only lead to more long-term problems. We know that every day that someone waits to start treatment, or every time that someone is stuck in the back of an ambulance or an A& E department, it is because there is not a bed for them to be transferred to, which leads to worse outcomes. Then, of course, long-term health conditions can develop.
Obviously, this is not just a problem in hospitals; it is also a problem in other areas, such as primary care and social care. On primary care, the Liberal Democrats are calling for 8,000 more GPs. A very astute constituent of mine, a medicine student called Jonty Eaton-Hart, wrote to me recently. He has written a lot on rural and remote health. He pointed out that at the moment in general practice, the situation is almost similar to that of a frog being boiled in a pot, whereby there is so much pressure now on people working in general practice that at some point the frog is going to hop out of the boiling water. Retention of staff is absolutely key.
As I say, Jonty has written a lot about rural areas. In rural areas such as my corner of Devon, the very notion of NHS dentistry is another area of health that feels like some sort of vaguely recalled legend from years gone by, with people being left in agony because they cannot get an appointment. So many constituents have written to me complaining that they have to pay huge sums to travel long distances. But if people cannot travel long distances or cannot pay the large sums required for private treatment, then they have to suffer in agony.
This Conservative Government simply cannot go on as if nothing is wrong. It is plain that the dental contract needs reform, but the fact that they are not reforming it properly suggests that they simply do not care. They cannot go on pretending that somehow dentistry is available everywhere on the NHS; that is simply not the case in rural areas.
Another area that needs a major rethink is the way in which social care is integrated into our national health service. Of course, such integration has notionally happened now that we have a Department called the Department of Health and Social Care, but actually that is just rhetorical; we are not seeing proper integration of health and social care.
The Government have repeatedly shelved plans to overhaul social care and instead are content to tinker round the edges while people are unable to get the care they need. We have seen chronic workplace shortages; there are over 150,000 vacancies in adult social care. Yet the Government have repeatedly rejected Liberal Democrat proposals for a carer’s minimum wage, which would see an uplift of £2 per hour in the minimum wage paid in these crucial social care jobs.
The Liberal Democrats reckon that investing an extra £5 billion in social care will lead to savings in the NHS—not to the same level, of course, but we reckon that that would bring £3 billion in savings for the NHS. Therefore, a £5 billion investment in social care would actually involve only a net cost of £2 billion. At present, publicly funded social care is mainly financed through local government. We know that local government finances have been squeezed really hard in recent years, so we have to shift some of this burden of taxation back to Westminster.
The Liberal Democrats are also calling for cancer patient treatment to start within two months of an urgent referral. That ought to be the case now. We are calling for an extra £4 billion to be spent over five years in this area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) was exactly right when he said:
“Voting Conservative is bad for your health.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I thank the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for leading this debate and for setting the scene so very well. It is great to have such debates to remind us of the importance of our NHS to society across the United Kingdom as a whole. This really gives us a wee chance to say thank you. I strongly concur with the comments of others, and as health spokesperson for my party, these issues mean so much to me. It is great to be here to give all our NHS staff across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the recognition that they deserve. I thank them.
I commend the NHS staff who work day in, day out to provide for local people. It is fair to say that we have had a tough four years in terms of healthcare, with the pandemic having a devastating impact on day-to-day treatment. More recently, the impacts of covid are ongoing in terms of delays and waiting lists. We will never be able to truly understand the feeling of working in that environment, as Members were able to partake in debates from home. Recognising the sacrifices that our NHS workers made at times, which were unknown and dangerous, is an important reminder of the covid pandemic.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. He will know all too well that in Northern Ireland our healthcare workers and nurses are the very backbone of our NHS. Does he agree that it is time for the Government to step up and award our healthcare workers and nurses with the pay they deserve, and to stop hiding behind the cloak of there being no Stormont? We know that if Stormont was back up and running in the morning there is not the money to do it. Will he encourage the Minister to take that back to the Government?
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend and will go on to comment on that shortly. Given the circumstances of our NHS right now, on paper the future does not seem too bright. We have people waiting years for surgery and consulting appointments, people struggling to get appointments with their GPs and, in some cases, people waiting for 12 hours to be seen by a doctor at A&E.
However, we will always remain hopeful for the future of the NHS because of the people who work in it and who truly make it what it is: those who work the extra hour, in many cases without pay, after their shift ends to ensure everything is up to date; those who come into their work on their days off due to short staffing; and those who do not have lunch breaks either, as they are too run off their feet. They are the NHS staff who I know, and they are the NHS staff that my words speak to.
The key to fixing those issues lies within this very building. It is for our Government to make the decision to fund the NHS properly. I have constituents, friends and family members who contact me all the time about the condition of the NHS, especially in terms of funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) is right to make that comment on behalf of the doctors, nurses and NHS staff who do so much.
Only this time last year I went to the picket line in Newtownards, one of the towns in my constituency, as the hon. Member for Wirral West said she did in her introduction to the debate. I joined the picket line because I felt that their request for pay was right, and that we should support them to the utmost of our ability. I hoped that would be the case—again, I look to the Minister for that. It is important that those issues are relayed to parliamentarians so that we can get the full scope of just how much people are struggling with the current rate of pay.
With sufficient funding and recognition of the issues, we can improve and build on our NHS. If we reflect on the NHS from 1948 to now, the enhancements are incredible. Medical technology is always being improved and new medicines are being discovered. Queen’s University Belfast is key to that, through the partnerships it has with business. We are finding more efficient ways of diagnosing diseases. As we look ahead to the next decade, we can expect to see more of those medical advancements as technology is always improving. It is incredible to see how far we have come. This week, Queen’s University Belfast has come forward with a new prostate cancer centre in Northern Ireland, which will be to the fore of finding treatments and the cure for that disease.
The next generations of nurses and doctors are going to feel the impact of our decisions today, so let us make the right ones, right now. We must build bridges and remind ourselves of the compassion that the NHS provides. We have a duty to deliver for the people we represent right across this great nation. They are telling us that currently things are just not good enough. I strongly encourage a regional discussion on the improvement of funding for the NHS so that no nation is left behind, and that, more importantly, all the NHS staff of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland get paid suitable wages to help them make ends meet. We must ensure that the services are up to scratch to allow them to do their jobs to the best of their ability, as they all wish to do. We wish to support them in that.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
We move on to the Front Benchers, who have 10 minutes each.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on bringing forward this important debate. She made an insightful opening speech, and I thank her for this opportunity to highlight the incredible work of the Scottish Government despite real-terms cuts to funding. It is a privilege to contribute to the debate as the SNP health spokesperson and as someone who understands the true value of our NHS. I will break down my contribution into two core components—funding and staffing—and explain why British Governments of any colour are causing real and lasting damage to both of them.
I turn first to funding. With more and more privatisation creeping in through the back door in NHS England, there are dire consequences for our NHS in Scotland through Barnett consequentials. The reality is that how much is spent by the British Government on England’s NHS dictates how much the Scottish Government have to spend on our NHS up the road. Despite cuts to Barnett consequentials, our NHS, run by the Scottish Government, is continuing to invest in new and innovative ways to reduce health inequalities and protect our NHS for future generations; the young patients family fund comes to mind. We are leading the way in Scotland, supporting young patients and their families to get through ill health without suffering financial detriment, too. The other nations across these isles should take note and replicate the young patients family fund to improve health outcomes. The First Minister’s pledge of £300 million to cut NHS waiting times is another example. There will be 100,000 fewer patients on NHS waiting lists come 2026 because of that investment.
What happens down here is that the Treasury gives money to private companies to provide a service for NHS England. That means less capital investment in NHS England, which means less money for the Scottish Government to spend on NHS Scotland. Despite the year-on-year reduction in Barnett consequentials for health, NHS Scotland staff remain the best paid across these isles. What does that look like in practice? A band 2 porter in Scotland earns £2,980 more a year than their counterpart in England, and a band 5 nurse in Scotland earns £3,080 more a year than their counterpart in England. That is all despite the increased privatisation in NHS England.
I have two questions for the Minister on funding. What representations has he made to the Treasury ahead of the autumn statement? And will there be a change or, indeed, an increase to the money given to private enterprises to provide services to NHS England?
I will move on to staffing. Our staff are our NHS—past, present and future. The staffing issue we face because of being dragged out of the European Union is the single biggest issue for our NHS in Scotland. The future of our NHS hinges on staff recruitment and retention. As I said, our NHS in Scotland pays comparatively higher wages than the rest of these isles. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) rightly pointed out the urgency of ending the exodus of NHS staff. Despite that, attracting and retaining top talent remains our biggest concern, indicative of broken Brexit Britain.
The British Government’s shift to being increasingly insular has significant consequences for our NHS in Scotland. That is why the SNP has repeatedly called for the devolution of powers over migration, because we in Scotland are committed to expanding our workforce. The toxic, hostile atmosphere created by the British Government is a barrier to that recruitment. What representations has the Minister made to Cabinet colleagues about the devolution of migration powers to the Scottish Government?
The hon. Member for Wirral West rightly pointed out that underfunding the NHS, quite apart from the harm it does to our constituents, is not a viable economic strategy. Poverty is expensive, as are health inequalities. Cuts to NHS funding are totally false economies that have real costs in the form of longer waiting lists, lost productivity and pain. As the hon. Member pointed out, it is not the model of the NHS that is broken, but the chronic underfunding that has led us here.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made the point that NHS England is receiving higher funding than ever before. However, he failed to mention the capital given to private companies to provide services, instead of that funding going directly into NHS England.
Daniel Kawczynski
I will repeat the question that I posed to the hon. Member for Wirral West, who instigated the debate. We are putting record levels of investment into the NHS. Where will the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) get the extra money that she wants to put into the NHS?
Amy Callaghan
We look at progressive taxation measures in Scotland to generate income and revenue to put into our NHS, but we are experiencing cuts to Barnett consequentials because of how the British Government down here are spending money on the NHS, with investment in private enterprises as opposed to capital going directly into the NHS. We are experiencing real-term cuts to our funding despite our generating money through other means.
It will come as no surprise that the financial and staffing issues facing our NHS in Scotland are a result of being tied to this broken Union. We cannot afford to be in this financial Union. Our NHS cannot afford for us to be in this financial Union. I look forward to the day when Scotland is an independent nation within the European Union, with a fully funded NHS and no recruitment or staff retention issues because we have created an inclusive and welcoming environment for all.
Before I conclude, I will say that it is fitting, with World Stroke Day just around the corner, that I am standing here talking about the future of our NHS. I have a future because of our NHS. We must provide proper funding and staffing to ensure that there is a future for the NHS and the millions who will need it for generations to come.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for securing the debate. She is a committed campaigner for our national health service, and she set out clearly how the NHS faces an unprecedented challenge. We have heard powerful cases put forward about the need for reform, including from the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth). My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) focused on the workforce strategy for the NHS. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who talked about sickle cell disease and equality in the NHS, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
This debate on the future of the NHS is timely as it is our first opportunity to put to the test the Government’s new slogan, which was unveiled at their conference:
“Long-term decisions for a brighter future”.
Personally, I would say that 13 years is long enough. What has been the result of that? Where we once spoke of winter crises, we now face crisis in the NHS all year round. Patient outcomes are declining, public satisfaction is at a 40-year low and improvements in healthy life expectancy have stalled.
One in seven of us are now stuck on waiting lists. Some 2.6 million people of working age are out of work and long-term sick—a record high. Across swathes of the country, dental deserts mean that patients are pulling their own teeth out because they cannot get the care they need. This Government was the future once, and their record is historically bad.
As the CQC warned last week in its “State of Care” report, the risk is that healthcare in this country becomes a two-tier system, where those who can pay get treated and those who cannot have to wait. My party will never accept that. We will always defend the principle of an NHS that is there for everybody when they need it, free at the point of use.
As we have heard, we need a serious plan for investment and reform if the NHS is to realise that promise. If the Government cannot deliver, we will. We will train thousands more doctors and nurses so that the NHS has the staff it needs, armed with cutting-edge technology to treat patients sooner and faster. We will get doctors and nurses to help to address the backlogs and pull the NHS out of permacrisis. We will reform the system to shift more care to the community, fix the front door to the NHS, and deliver a prevention-first revolution to shift focus from the NHS as a sickness service to it being a genuine, holistic health and care service.
One thing that will define the future of the NHS is the disease burden of the country. Children in school today will live into the next century. Our NHS has been there for us for 75 years and will need to be there for 75 more, but it will not be there if we carry on as we are. The change we need to make is the shift to prevention. Right now the situation is scandalous, given the clinical time and need that is taken up with treating illnesses that could have been avoided in the first place. Many of the biggest killers, from cancer to heart disease, could be drastically reduced through healthier lifestyles and environments, yet as we saw with the latest child measurement programme statistics released last week, primary schoolchildren are some of the least healthy there have ever been. Nearly one in four children are now obese by the time they leave primary school, which is absolutely shocking. Some prevalence studies show that four in 10 obese children have evidence of fatty liver disease.
Yet more shocking is the fact that, while these children are bombarded with adverts for junk food, such as KitKat cereal, or are begging their parents to fork out more than £10 for a bottle of Prime energy drink, the Government have seemingly abandoned their plan to tackle junk food promotions and adverts targeting children. I ask the Minister: when will the Government publish the consultation into the pre-watershed junk food ads ban? Where is the secondary legislation that they promised? They said that the delay was to allow time to consult, yet the consultation has been done and is probably sitting in a drawer in Whitehall somewhere. What is the hold-up? Will the Minister back Labour’s plan to ban junk food ads before the watershed and to introduce free breakfast clubs serving healthy food at school, so that every child gets the best start?
The future of NHS dentistry is also hanging by a thread. Dentists are leaving the NHS every year. Huge parts of the country are dental deserts, where practices are not even taking on NHS patients. The No. 1 reason that children end up in hospital is to remove rotting teeth. It has been six months since the Government announced their dental recovery plan, but where is it? Their response to the excellent Health and Social Care Committee report into NHS dentistry is also overdue; when can we expect that?
In the meantime, Labour has set out our rescue plan. We will have 700,000 more urgent appointments a year to bring down the backlogs. We will target funding to train up dentists in left-behind areas, and, of course, we will have a national supervised toothbrushing scheme for schoolchildren, because we know that the cheapest intervention means not needing to see a dentist at all.
Securing the future of general practice is also integral to the future of the NHS as a whole. People trust their GPs, and the relationships that they build with their patients are irreplaceable, but despite the Government’s much-vaunted primary care recovery plan, record numbers of GPs are still leaving the profession. In 2019, the Government promised to deliver 6,000 extra NHS GPs. Will the Minister explain why that promise has been broken? How does he expect to move more care from acute settings to the community if general practice continues to decline at this rate? Where is his equivalent to Labour’s fully costed plan to recruit 8,500 mental health professionals, with support in every community and every school, to relieve the pressure on frontline GPs? And will the Minister say what proportion of the community diagnostic centres that have been set up in recent years are actually in the community, rather than in an existing healthcare site?
The Minister will surely acknowledge the point that there will be no sustainable future for the NHS without tackling the crisis in social care. Thousands of people are stuck in hospital beds who are medically fit to leave but are unable to do so, because the care that they need in the community is not there to support them. Can he explain how he expects to find a sustainable solution to that persistent problem without getting serious about pay and standards and addressing the chronic workforce shortage in the sector?
It is also a poor reflection of this Government’s long-term planning that the NHS is still stuck using creaking, outdated equipment, and has fewer scanners per person than Greece. Freedom of information responses from NHS trusts have revealed that half—48%—still have an MRI or CT scanner in operation past the recommended lifespan of 10 years. One in five trusts are using the same scanners that they had when the last Labour Government left office in 2010.
Does the Minister not agree that it is time for an upgrade? There are currently 1.6 million people waiting for diagnostic scans and tests in England—three times as many as when the last Labour Government left office in 2010. Slow, outdated equipment is part of the problem, so will the Minister follow Labour’s lead, with our “Fit for the Future” fund to double the number of CT and MRI scanners?
To really make the NHS fighting fit for the future, we should grasp the opportunities in the explosion of innovation in health technologies, too. Right now, a revolution is taking place in medical science, technology and data that has the potential to transform our healthcare. By using Britain’s strengths in life sciences and NHS data, we could transform the model of healthcare in this country using prediction, prevention and highly targeted precision medicine.
Today, genomic screening can spot predisposition to big killers such as cancer or heart disease. Let us imagine: if every family could choose to screen their baby’s genetic information, they would be empowered to give their child the healthiest start in life. Last month, I visited the Precision Health Technologies Accelerator at the University of Birmingham, part of the life sciences park that it is building there. Over time, it hopes that the campus will grow into a leading life sciences hub, bringing together the best of our university, business and the NHS, and creating more than 10,000 jobs in the process. That is really exciting.
The next Labour Government will build on the strength of our life sciences sector. The development of coronavirus vaccines shows us how industrial policy can work, with the state playing a crucial role in partnership with the private sector. Yet the Government scrapped the Industrial Strategy Council and, since 2019, the UK has dropped from second to ninth in global life sciences league tables for inward foreign direct investment. Where is the Government’s strategy to put the NHS at the front of the queue for cutting-edge innovations in the health sector and end the postcode lottery in the adoption of new treatments and diagnostics?
Daniel Kawczynski
Bearing in mind that the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust is the worst-performing for A&E in the United Kingdom, will the hon. Lady commit, if there is a Labour Government, to backing the £312 million investment in our local trust—yes or no?
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not have the level of detail to be able to make any such commitment. He needs to speak to the Minister to ensure that the valuable investment they have been able to obtain for people in Shrewsbury is actually realised. That is really a conversation for him to have with the Minister.
There is no doubt that the NHS needs serious reform if it is to serve for the next 75 years. Since the Prime Minister and Health Secretary made a pledge in January for 5,000 more beds in time for winter, the number of hospital beds in England has fallen by almost 3,000. After a promise to clear all patients waiting 78 weeks or more for treatment by April this year, which was a shockingly low bar, the number rose last month from 7,300 to 9,000 patients. Despite making it one of their flagship five pledges to cut waiting lists, the Government have again broken their own record this month, with the number of patients waiting now at 7.8 million.
This Government cannot be trusted with the future of the NHS. Whether it is the social care crisis or the RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—scandal, the Government have literally failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining. The NHS will not survive another five years of this. Labour’s 10-year plan of change and modernisation will build an NHS fit for the future, shifting the focus of healthcare from the acute sector into the community to boost prevention, diagnose conditions earlier and provide treatment closer to people’s homes.
In closing, I want to put on the record my deep thanks to all our NHS staff for going above and beyond for patients, and especially everyone at the University Hospitals Birmingham trust in my constituency, which is the largest trust in the country.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
The Minister of State may speak for 10 minutes, but there are a couple of extra minutes as well. In addition, the convention is to allow the mover of the motion a couple of minutes to wind up, so he has a lot more latitude than usual.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for securing a debate on this important matter. A debate of this nature is almost impossible to respond to in a relatively short period of time—although it is slightly longer now. I could easily fill the 90 minutes on the future of the NHS, as I know could all hon. Members across the Chamber today. I will endeavour to respond to as many of the issues and themes raised as possible in the time left available to me and, if I can, before the Front Benchers in the main Chamber conclude and we are all summoned over to vote.
While we will not always agree on the best approach—in fact, I strongly disagree with so much of what the hon. Lady said in her opening speech—I can assure her and Members across the House that I share her passionate desire to see an NHS that delivers and continues to deliver excellent care to all its patients, both now and in the future. Similarly to the Opposition Front-Bench team, the Government believe that the NHS should be free at the point of delivery and that its offer should be comprehensive, with services provided based solely on need. Let me absolutely clear: that will never change. In response to the themes raised in the debate, I will start by focusing on three broad areas: funding, workforce, and finally transformation and innovation.
Turning first to funding, as my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Southend West (Anna Firth) set out, we have invested record amounts in the future of our healthcare system. By the end of this Parliament, core spending will have increased from £140.5 billion in 2019-20 to £193 billion in 2024-25. For those good at maths, that is a cash increase of £52.6 billion or 37%. At the beginning of this debate, several of us got a little excitable when the issue of privatisation was raised, and you rightly shut us down, Mr Pritchard. People have managed to make their contributions, but this is perennial accusation levelled at the Government, so let me absolutely clear: it is not our policy and it is not our plan. The NHS is not, and never will be, for sale.
Look at the actual facts on this. In 2013-14, around 6.1% of NHS funding was spent on the independent sector. Now let us jump to 2021-22, when it was 5.9%. What we are doing, however, is using the independent sector to enable us to fully realise our healthcare system’s capacity, and of course to improve performance. This is an approach that I understand is supported by the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). It is an approach that is better for patients and for our NHS. We are giving our patients greater choice and control, and empowering them to shape and manage their own healthcare.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the extraordinary increases in Government funding for the NHS, but has he recognised during the course of this debate my concern that, seven years after securing the £312 million for modernisation of A&E services in Shropshire, not a single brick has been laid? How sustainable is this NHS model when the managers of our local trusts are so incapable of delivering the construction with what we have secured for them?
Will Quince
I hear my hon. Friend’s concern. I have met with him and other Shropshire MPs on this issue and committed to meet with him to discuss it again. We are very keen to resolve the situation.
Before I move on from privatisation, let me gently say to Opposition Members—some of whom raised it and some of whom did not—that patient choice and the ability to use the private sector has been part of the NHS since its formation. It is a fundamental part of the NHS constitution. Let us be clear what those who call for private sector involvement to be entirely removed from the NHS are calling for: they are calling for charities, independent sector providers, GPs, dentists and community pharmacies to be removed. So let us be very careful, and very clear about exactly what we are calling for, because the independent sector plays an important role.
Margaret Greenwood
While the Minister is on the subject of privatisation, I would like him to respond to two points. First, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 allowed NHS foundation trusts to earn 49% of their money from private patients. Can he explain how that benefits ordinary patients? Clearly, if half a hospital is given over to private patients, the waiting time doubles. Secondly, representatives of private companies sit on integrated care partnerships, which are responsible for preparing the integrated care strategy for an area. How can it be right that a private company can influence how a huge amount of public money is spent?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I have already committed to write to her on some of the points relating to the 2012 Act, because she raised a number of questions. On the broader point about whether the independent sector should be part of integrated care boards and partnerships, I think it is helpful if it is, because individual systems need to know the full capacity available to them, and that includes the independent sector, which plays an important role because it is part of the health ecosystem in an area.
Will Quince
I will come back to the hon. Lady, but I am conscious of time.
The second area widely covered today was workforce. I echo the hon. Lady’s thanks to our NHS staff. I want to put on record my personal thanks to all those working in our health and care system: doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, managers, carers—all those who work in our NHS—for their hard work and dedication. We remain deeply grateful to them for all their work during the pandemic, in facing the new challenges of tackling the backlog, and of course the routinely excellent care they provide day in, day out. Our long-term workforce plan embodies the Government’s commitment to NHS sustainability: we are funding more doctors, more nurses and healthcare workers employed on NHS terms and conditions by NHS providers. That is backed by an additional £2.4 billion over the next five years, and at the heart of it is a significant increase in training places.
The third theme I want to focus on is transformation and innovation, which has also been touched on. We are committed to making our NHS more integrated, more strategic and better able to tackle the challenges it faces. The hon. Lady referenced the Health and Care Act 2022 numerous times—I hear her questions and points, and I will write to her on them. We put those issues on a statutory footing. We know that an increasing number of people are living with chronic medical conditions and complex care needs, which is where more integrated services can and will make an enormous difference. We want partners focusing on improving services rather than competing with each other when it is not in the interest of patients. I believe—we believe—that is the right approach because local areas know best, and certainly know far better than Ministers in Whitehall how best to organise themselves and design and deliver the best possible care for patients.
Will Quince
I have to make some progress—I am conscious of time.
In addition, we have digital transformation and technology, which are critical to the future of the health and social care system. Embracing digital provides a significant opportunity for us to improve clinical service to deliver better care for patients and reduce pressures on the NHS. That is why we are investing around £1.5 billion a year in digital transformation to run live services and drive those transformation ambitions. That also includes plans to improve our NHS app, digitise the frontline and improve services. We are also working with trusts to deliver things such as electronic discharge and electronic bed management systems, which also improve efficiency within the NHS.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) mentioned NIHR research, which I want to touch on briefly. We spend around £1 billion a year on that, but the Government do not commission research directly; indeed, it would be totally wrong for any Minister or shadow Minister to direct our clinicians and researchers to look into a particular area. However, we encourage and rely on organisations to come forward with bids for research, which clinicians then look at. That is rightly independent from Government, and I will be happy to work with the hon. Member to see how we can get more research into that area.
I wanted to say so much more, but time is short and I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Wirral West has time to respond. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) touched on the life sciences space. We are putting a huge amount of work into life sciences with the Life Sciences Council and the life sciences vision, and we have launched the dementia, mental health, cancer, obesity and addiction missions, with more than £210 million in Government investment and world-leading chairs to support them. There is also our additional investment in genomic medicine, which the hon. Member rightly touched on and which is a hugely exciting field. The ability to screen for and identify the prevalence of future disease and the ability to screen babies in future will be hugely exciting. This is definitely the future of medicine.
This is a hugely important debate and I have far more to say, as you can tell, Mr Pritchard. The NHS is a vital part of the fabric of our public life. It is beloved by the public and rightly held in the highest esteem. The Government believes in the NHS; I believe in the NHS. That is why we are taking the right long-term decisions to protect its future.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Margaret Greenwood to wind up. The Minister has very generously given the hon. Member three rather than two minutes.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank all Members who have spoken in what has been a worthwhile debate this afternoon. We have heard from speakers across the Benches, and it is clear that the NHS is in crisis. With waiting lists for routine treatment of more than 7 million and more than 125,000 staffing vacancies, it is clear that patients’ needs are not being met. Patients are suffering as a result and existing staff members are being put under incredible pressure.
The fundamental model of the NHS is not broken; we need to see the Government recommit to the service through a significant increase in funding. We must see an end to the privatisation agenda and rebuild the service as comprehensive, universal, publicly owned and publicly run, there for anyone of us should we need it. I want to end by reiterating my thanks to NHS staff for their work and for their commitment to the NHS as a public service.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the NHS.
Importation and Sale of Foie Gras
(1 year 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
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the importation and sale of foie gras.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to have secured this important debate about the dreadful and totally unnecessary cruelty to animals in creating a so-called delicacy. I wish to make it clear that, while today’s debate is about the importation and sale of foie gras, I understand that we cannot ban a product. Instead, we can deal with the process through which it is made. In this case, the product, foie gras, is produced by forced feeding.
I wish to offer my thanks to Abigail Penny from Animal Equality UK, who should be shortly joining us in the Public Gallery. I can proudly say that she hails from the sunshine coast and resides in Clacton, which is a place of animal lovers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. There was an Adjournment debate on this matter in the Chamber some time ago. I supported the principle referred to by the hon. Gentleman. He probably shares my frustration that, although Government have made it clear that the production of force-fed foie gras raises serious welfare concerns, unfortunately no steps have been taken. What does he feel that the Minister and the Government need to do to make that happen?
Giles Watling
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I raise the matter here today precisely because I do not think enough action has taken place since that previous debate.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes for the first vote. If there are subsequent votes, it will be 10 minutes. Then, as soon as the mover of the motion and the Minister are here, we can proceed, so I ask hon. Members to go quickly as possible, please.
Giles Watling
After the interruption, I am pleased to say that we now have a full house in the Public Gallery. I pay tribute to and thank Abigail Penny from Animal Equality UK for her hard work on this cause. I can proudly say that she comes from Clacton, the sunshine coast, and Clacton is a place of animal lovers, which is probably why I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare. Her charity has provided a brochure, which colleagues are welcome to take back with them, highlighting the issue in further detail.
Foie gras results from the process of forcibly putting a tube down a goose’s throat into their stomach and pumping food until their liver swells. The liver is then cut out and sold to the markets. I am sure that many meat eaters are present. One of my twin daughters champions the vegan cause, and I have to admit that I am not quite there. The point I wish to make is that the normal kinds of meat that the average consumer buys are not created in this barbaric and cruel fashion. We have strict laws in this country on how our industry produces meat and other animal products, avoiding unnecessary suffering where at all possible. Sadly, that is not the case with the production of foie gras.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Labour attempted to ban the importation of foie gras during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020. The Conservative Government voted our proposals down, but Labour is committed to introducing a ban on these imports as soon as we can. Can we count on the hon. Member’s support?
Giles Watling
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention; I am not sure whether she was here earlier when I answered another point of a similar nature. One of the reasons why I am bringing the debate today is that there has been inaction. I would like to see action on this issue, and very soon.
I could quite easily go on regarding the emotional argument against foie gras and for animal welfare standards to be improved, but it seems impossible to have a reasonable method of producing foie gras. Instead, I shall raise a more practical argument. There have been many recorded incidents of disease outbreak in France. As we have seen with the growing bedbug issue, we are not safe from disease and pests just because we have the English channel. The crowded conditions of the farms act as a breeding ground for disease, much like any other form of intensive farming. As a representative of a constituency that has vast areas of rural land, I would not want to endanger my local farmers. We must be especially alert to that risk and not accelerate another potential pandemic given the serious consequences of covid-19. Although bird flu has not yet jumped to humans, I understand that scientists are concerned that it could mutate.
Foie gras is an expensive luxury item. By defending foie gras sales or not acting on the trade during times of spiralling financial hardship across the country, I fear that we risk appearing to be totally out of touch with the British people. If I were to stand on Christmas Tree Island in Clacton and take a poll of constituents who have ever purchased foie gras, I can only imagine the response. This is especially important to keep in mind with the looming general election ahead. It is a low-hanging fruit for the Government, so we should move on it.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate; I had a similar debate on the banning of the importation of foie gras on the Floor of the House of Commons a while ago. Does he agree that if we deem foie gras too cruel to be produced in this country, we should also agree that, by definition, it is too cruel to be imported?
Giles Watling
I absolutely agree that it is too cruel. As with the much-desired ban on trophy hunting, which is a ridiculous sport, we should ban such imports. From Abigail and Animal Equality UK, I understand that the petition to ban foie gras by force-feeding was signed by no fewer than 280,000 people. That is an enormous amount of people concerned for the lives of these birds and the way they live them, and it is impressive to see.
I can confirm that e-petition 608288 to ban the importation and sale of foie gras has been signed by 6,878 people, including six of my constituents in Clacton, and e-petition 609129 to ban fur and foie gras imports has been signed by 528 people. There is a case to be made that public opinion is now moving in a very clear direction.
However, colleagues and viewers of this debate alike might ask why it is focused on the importation and sale of foie gras produced by force feeding. It is because, as we have just heard, producing foie gras by force feeding is already outlawed in the UK. Nevertheless, despite the cruelty that goes into the production of foie gras, we still allow it to be imported. When applying the law, judges consider how consistent it is; in this case, in my view, the law is not very consistent at all.
As my hon. Friend the Minister might mention—I do not wish to take away any of her thunder—the Government have successfully ended the imports of whale meat, seal fur, elephant ivory, and cat and dog meat; I personally ran a campaign against cat and dog meat, to end its production globally. If personal choice is a valid reason for failing to ban the import of foie gras, why have other bans been introduced?
I also think it is prudent to note the Government’s support for the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on the importation of hunting trophies, which I mentioned earlier. If you will excuse the pun, Mr Pritchard, there is clearly an appetite in the Government to go down the route of banning cruel imports.
Lastly, foie gras has been banned in royal residences since last year. I will not break any protocol by speaking here, but I think it prudent to mention that this place is a royal residence and still belongs to the Crown as a royal palace. Like all colleagues, I am a humble and obedient servant of the Crown, and I have sworn an oath of allegiance. Although it is my understanding that foie gras is not on any menus on the parliamentary estate, a strong act of symbolism would be to ban the product here, too—something that I will raise with Mr Speaker.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) for securing this debate today. As he pointed out, he is chair of the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare, a role he takes really seriously—as did I when I chaired the same group as a Back Bencher. Some really great work has been done by that APPG.
My hon. Friend said that many of his constituents who are also great animal lovers are here today, because they take animal welfare very seriously. I was very pleased to hear that. However, I believe that we are an entire nation of animal lovers, and animal welfare has been an absolute top priority for the Government since 2010. Our standards of animal welfare are already world-leading. According to World Animal Protection’s animal protection index, the UK has the highest animal welfare score in the G7 and some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, which we should all genuinely be proud of.
Ruth Jones
The Minister says that we have the highest animal welfare standards. May I ask her, very gently: why has the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill gone, why has the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill gone and why did we not take the chance to ban foie gras in 2020?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. If she will bear with me and listen to my speech, I think she will see that so much proposed in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill has either already been brought forward in legislation or is in the process of being brought forward, so great is our commitment to animal welfare. I will list some of those things.
Since 2010, we have raised animal welfare standards for farm animals, companion animals and wild animals. We have banned the traditional battery cages for laying hens and we have raised standards for chickens reared for meat. We have implemented and upgraded welfare within our slaughter regime, including introducing CCTV cameras in slaughterhouses. We have revamped the local authority licensing regime for commercial pet services, including selling, dog breeding, boarding and animal displays, and we have banned third-party puppy and kitten sales through Lucy’s law, which we particularly worked on all those years ago in the APPG on animal welfare. We have also introduced protections for service animals through Finn’s law and we have introduced offences of horse fly-grazing and abandonment. Some colleagues in Westminster Hall now were involved in those pieces of legislation. We have also banned wild animals in travelling circuses.
Our manifesto commitments demonstrate our ambition to go further on animal welfare. In 2019, we committed to bringing in new laws on animal sentience; to introducing tougher sentences for animal cruelty; to implementing the Ivory Act 2018 and extending it to other species; to ensuring that animal welfare standards are not compromised in trade deals; to cracking down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies; to bringing forward cat microchipping; to banning the keeping of primates as pets; to banning live shipments of animals; and to ensuring that farmers, in return for funding, safeguard high standards of animal welfare.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Ducks and geese are sentient animals; they have feelings. Imagine all of us stuck in a cage with someone opening our mouths and stuffing stuff down our throats—God, how awful that would be! We have to get rid of this stuff.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I am not going to disagree about the horrible cruelty—that is why we have banned the practice in this country. I think he makes the point exactly.
Those are the manifesto commitments but I would like to list the things that we have already delivered, to make it clear how seriously we take animal welfare: we have increased the penalties for those convicted of animal cruelty from six months to five years; we have passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which has just been referred to, and we have launched the dedicated Committee to work on it; we have made microchipping compulsory for cats as well as dogs; and we have announced the extension to the Ivory Act 2018, which came into force last year, to cover five more endangered species—hippopotamus, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus.
On top of our manifesto commitments, we published our ambitious and comprehensive action plan for animal welfare in 2021. The plan set out the work that we are focused on pursuing, to deliver a better life for animals in this country and abroad. The commitments in the action plan last through this Parliament and beyond it. Our action plan relates to farmed animals, wild animals, pets and sporting animals, and it includes legislative and non-legislative reforms. In addition, we have provided for penalty notices to apply to animal welfare offences; introduced new police powers to tackle hare coursing—that needed tackling and we have worked hard to bring forward a better crackdown on hare coursing; we banned glue traps; and we have supported the private Members’ Bills to ban the trade in detached shark fins and to ban the advertising here of low-welfare animal experiences abroad.
This debate, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton, deals specifically with foie gras. As hon. Members will know, the production of foie gras by force-feeding is banned in the UK because it is incompatible with domestic legislation. Foie gras production is covered by the general provisions in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which make it a criminal offence to allow an animal to suffer unnecessarily and place a duty on people responsible for animals that requires them to do all that is reasonable to ensure the welfare of their animals. That includes an animal’s need for a suitable diet and to be protected from pain, suffering, injury, and disease.
While we have domestic restrictions on the production of force-fed foie gras, it is of course possible to import foie gras from abroad—clearly, there is a market trading in that. It is absolutely vital that we develop any future policies on the basis of robust evidence in line with the Government’s commitment to improving animal welfare standards as set out in the action plan for animal welfare. We are committed to building a clear evidence base on foie gras to inform our future decisions, and we are looking at what other countries that have banned it do. As my hon. Friend will know, a certain number of countries have banned the production of foie gras just as we have—Germany, Italy and Luxembourg. As he will also know, the EU does not have an overall ban. We are also looking at how the World Trade Organisation operates if a ban is introduced.
All those things need to be considered carefully. One of our strongest levers is the work that we do on the international stage to influence the strengthening of animal welfare standards across the globe recommended by the World Organisation for Animal Health and other global organisations and applied to different countries. As my hon. Friend will know from his work on dog meat—we did some work on that jointly as Back Benchers—that is a strong way to influence and encourage other countries not to use these methods. All that will be looked at in the evidence base, and we will work with relevant Departments on disease—he mentioned disease and avian flu—as part of the evidence building.
I am standing in for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, and I will make sure that comments made in the debate are passed on to him, as he was unable to attend. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton will know that some supermarkets have banned foie gras and, as he said, King Charles does not allow it to be served. Customers already have a choice not to buy it and certainly not to eat it—I would certainly never buy it.
Giles Watling
On that very point about banning the product and its import, many businesses in the private sector have banned the product and refuse to sell it. Fortnum & Mason—a short walk from Parliament—banned it from its shelves in 2021. By allowing restaurants and retailers to sell foie gras the United Kingdom, we are permitting animal torture and suffering. It is time to take an ethical stance, because those who still sell foie gras have a business advantage, as it is still legal and possible to do so.
Rebecca Pow
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I will certainly pass on his comments. I have made the point that we have a choice as to whether or not to buy the product if we do not support those methods of production. The evidence base is being established to inform future decisions, and I want to conclude by reiterating that animal welfare is a huge Government priority. We recognise the massive contribution that animals make to our planet. We are proud of what we have achieved on animal welfare.
Rebecca Pow
Am I allowed to take an intervention, Mr Pritchard? I am not sure whether I have time.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister, as she has been generous with her time. On animal welfare, a senior Tory MP has stated that hormone-injected beef is “delicious” and that
“you’ll be absolutely fine with chlorinated chicken”.
Why should we believe the Minister when she says that our animal welfare is the best in the world?
Rebecca Pow
Actually, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs dismissed those comments completely and said, “Absolutely not”. I reiterate that very strongly.
To conclude, we are really proud of what we have achieved on animal welfare. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber could disagree with the long list of things that we have achieved between us. We have made a huge step forward, but there is more to do and we keep prioritising caring for, protecting and respecting the animals with whom we share the planet.
Question put and agreed to.
Funding for Parks
(1 year 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
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for parks.
It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber with you, Mr Pritchard, a fellow Shropshire person and product of the open spaces of Shropshire. I will speak generally about parks and then in more detail about the problems faced by our parks and open spaces.
Parks are a major feature of our lives, providing opportunities to recreate, play games and observe nature, and for children to grow up. They are wonderful spaces. The oldest public park in Britain is in Birkenhead. Conceived in 1843 by Joseph Paxton, it developed into a wonderful open space—it is one of the largest parks in the country—and became iconic. It inspired Central Park in New York, which then inspired Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. So from Birkenhead we get San Francisco and the whole process of developing parks and open spaces. The park was an amazing achievement, and Paxton was, of course, the one who designed the Crystal Palace, which was built in Hyde Park for the Great Exhibition.
Throughout the 19th century there was big development of parks, as benefactors provided money for them. There were redoubtable fighters for public open space in every city who were concerned about growing industrialisation and people’s loss of amenity and contact with nature. Hampstead Heath came from that process. In some cases, parks were developed from what had previously been common land. Sadly, in many other places, they were not, and we became a country of very densely populated urban areas. The demand for parks grew. In some cases they were developed. In some cases there are more parks in suburban parts of our cities than in the centre because of the way industrial development happened.
In a sense, the parks came into their own in this country during the covid pandemic. When we were locked down, people could recreate in parks. I have a bizarre memory of a man riding around Finsbury Park on a bicycle with a loudspeaker telling people to go home because it was too full. I could, of course, see his point, but I could feel the sadness of people who wanted to be outside enjoying a bit of urban space.
It is inner urban open space that I want to say the most about. My borough, Islington, is geographically quite small. It is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country, if not the most densely populated. Until the end of the second world war in 1945, the only real open space in my constituency was Highbury Fields—there was Arsenal football ground as well, if we want to call that a public open space—in the south of the borough, on the edge of the City of London.
In 1945, something interesting happened across London and the other cities. The Abercrombie report, which was written during the war and was a planning idea for how London would develop after the war, was an incredibly far-sighted document. I might disagree with some of it—it was too keen on road building and not keen enough on other forms of transport—but it had a real vision for greening cities and enabling people to live with nature and have public open space near them.
At that time, in some parts of London there was less than 0.1 acres of open space per 1,000 people. In other words, there was no open space for many people in many parts of London. Abercrombie’s proposal, which has not totally been realised, was that London should aspire to have 4 acres of open space per 1,000 population. He realised that that would be very difficult, so he proposed a series of green routes that would link large open spaces in different parts of the city.
Most of the parks in my borough have been developed since 1945; some have been developed very recently. I have an aerial photograph in my office of a place called Wray Crescent, which, as the name indicates, is a crescent of housing; the picture shows the houses and gardens and so on. It is not there any more. The houses were all bought by the local authority and demolished, and a park was created in that space. There is a school next to my office that once had houses in what is now the school’s garden. Those houses were bought by the Inner London Education Authority and demolished to make a garden for the school. That is an incredibly brave thing for any public authority to do. Now, we would not even think about buying houses in order to create a park or open space because of the costs involved. We have to remember that some of this work was done by very far-sighted people.
We have nearly always achieved parks through a combination of wealthy benefactors—in some cases big charities, or even big landowners—and campaigns by ordinary people who just want something decent and to create more open space. One of my favourite parks in my constituency is Gillespie Park. I even led an Adjournment debate on it in the 1980s—[Laughter.] I have been here a long time, you see. At the time, Gillespie Park was a disused railway sidings. British Rail wanted to sell it, and there was a huge debate and campaign locally. Eventually, it won recognition as an open space, partly because British Rail made the fundamental public relations error of allowing people to use it on a temporary basis. Once people have been allowed to use a public open space temporarily, they are not going to give it up—and they did not give up Gillespie Park.
I was at the park on Sunday. It is beautiful: it is heavily wooded, with an amazing variety of bird and plant life, as well as fish life in the pond. We are very proud of it. There was an “apple day” on Sunday; hundreds of people came to enjoy different varieties of apple. I spoke to many of them, and I would guess that more than half of them have no open space of their own. They have no gardens or balconies—no open space whatsoever. The park is their lung. We have to remember that parks are there for everybody. We in this Chamber may have our own gardens at home, which we probably enjoy and love, but the vast majority of my constituents do not. Their only open space is the street or the park. They have no open space of their own. We should think very hard about that.
I was encouraged to seek this debate by the issues surrounding Finsbury Park, which is in the Tottenham constituency, just outside mine; I let the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) know that I would be raising it. Finsbury Park, which was established 150 years ago by the Metropolitan Board of Works, was designed to be very much bigger, but the board gave up on its expansion and sold some of the land for housing. It is still a substantial park, and a vital open space. After its development by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the park was taken over by the London County Council, and then by the Greater London Council, which actually ran it very well. The history of the park shows all kinds of things, from balloons taking off to anti-aircraft guns during the second world war and peace demonstrations in 1914. It has been a place for people all that time.
Like every other council, Haringey has funding problems, and it frequently lets out large parts of the park for concerts and entertainment and so on. The most recent figure I could find on the council’s income from concerts was £1.2 million for one year, which is a great deal of money. That involves a very substantial part of the park being taken over for several weeks on end, which causes a great deal of resentment. I am a patron of the Friends of Finsbury Park. Some time ago, a legal action was taken against Haringey Council to require it to spend the benefits of the concerts on the park, rather than on the generality of council expenditure. Although that action was successful, the park is still denied to a lot of people for quite a long time.
Managing the use of parks is always complicated and difficult; there are many demands, and it means trying to work out everybody’s life in a park. There are those who want to play football, cricket or baseball; those who want to just sit around doing nothing and playing music; those who want to play informal games; those who want to have birthday parties, and all the other things. There are also those who are keen on protecting trees and improving the biodiversity and natural life of parks. Managing parks is not simple. If we throw into the mix underfunding of the park, and pressure on the relevant local authority to raise more and more money from it in order to maintain it, we end up in a self-defeating circle where we lose the use of the park in order to make money to keep the park, which we cannot use. We have lost the use of it because of the many concerts that go on.
I am not against having concerts, festivals and parties in parks—absolutely not. I just think there has to be a balance and a limit on the numbers of them. They are not cheap and therefore not necessarily completely available to everybody. For example, the lowest priced Live Nation tickets last year in Finsbury Park were £190, way beyond the likely spending power of young people in the immediate area.
The problem affects my favourite local park, which I often use. It is a wonderful place and I am worried for its future, as I am worried for every other park’s future, unless we have some degree of guaranteed funding and protection of them. I can see the Minister becoming anxious, because I told him that I would say nothing he could possibly disagree with. I look forward to an intervention from him agreeing with my view.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
The right hon. Gentleman is giving a great speech and articulating the value of parks to our many local communities, including those across north London. Many parks are under unprecedented threat, whether from financial interests or from development—not least Stanley Park in my constituency, which was voted England’s best park last year. A local authority-led plan to develop part of the park has caused enormous disquiet in my constituency. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in urging local authorities to be mindful of the health and wellbeing benefits of parks and to be conscious about protecting their status?
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Stanley park is a wonderful park and a great place. Many other parks around the country are iconic and beautiful and all are at risk because of the danger of local authorities agreeing to a planning rule change that would allow parts of parks to be sold off.
It all seems very attractive at the time. Somebody in the council says, “Okay, we will sell off this bit of the park and get x million for this piece of land, and that will enable us to plug a spending gap somewhere else.” It is always a very attractive option. The problem is we will never, ever get the park back. Once it is gone, it is gone. It will not return. That is why I look forward to the Minister’s response and to the response to the Select Committee report.
We need to look again at the strength of legislation protecting public open spaces from development and from sale by local authorities so that that option is simply not available to local authorities. I am not saying that most local authorities want to sell parks—they do not—but we have to make sure parks are protected for all time. Fields in Trust has produced some interesting information. Between 2010 and 2021, there was a loss of £690 million in park funding across the whole country. Some 32% of parks have recorded a loss of frontline staff and 41% a loss of management; 23% have cut their development plans for any park; and 62% of local authorities—this is the saddest figure of all—expect to see the quality and appearance of their parks decline in the coming years.
The Government have said that they want money to be put aside for the development of new parks, and they have done that through the levelling-up fund. The number of new parks proposed is not very many—I think it was 100. Unless I have misunderstood the information that I have read in the various reports, only £9 million has been set aside for them. Well, we cannot develop even one park with £9 million, so I think that needs to be looked at carefully. If we want new parks, they have to be funded from somewhere, which I will come on to in a moment.
The Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry in 2016-17 was an important one, and it was revisited by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and by the Government in 2022. Clearly, a lot had changed in those five years. Covid had come, which enhanced the importance of parks but also led to a new round of funding problems for local authorities—£330 million less than in 2010 is now being spent on parks. The cuts in park expenditure have gone on and on. It is not clear what level of urban uplift is going to go on parks.
In a reply to a request from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Minister said that he thought local authorities were best placed to decide how money is spent. Yes, that is absolutely true, but unless there is overall protection for the level of expenditure on parks they will obviously be a place where cuts are made. If a councillor is faced with a massive bill on social care, or other aspects of key services, people will say that the parks do not matter, so they can be cut a bit more. What people forget in that short-sighted view of things is that we can help to alleviate the mental health crisis with the provision of open spaces.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I welcome this point being made, because parks have a clear benefit for our communities. They are an important cultural asset, but also improve people’s health and have an important role to play in maintaining our natural environment. Public Health England recognises the value of parks for people’s physical and mental health. It is understood that people who are living in areas with higher amounts of green space have a reduced likelihood of cardiovascular disease, for example. We must protect the funding of parks and ensure that these important cultural assets are maintained.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Member is quite correct. There are numbers of people who are going through a mental health crisis who feel that it is alleviated to some extent by going to a park. I have met people with mental health conditions who are going through group therapy who meet and walk around a park together; they feel that that is a way of coming together in a calm atmosphere. We should never underestimate the value of parks to all of us, in every way. They are a place for nature, recreation, sport, and a place to give us a sense of calm in our lives.
There is an inequality of park provision, however, around the country. We need to look at that. We need to look at protecting funding by central Government to local government so that it can be ringfenced for parks. One suggestion in the Committee report was that every local authority should be required to try and achieve the green flag standard in their parks. Many councils try and do that anyway because they want to—which is good—but they need to do it more.
The funding of parks improved a bit when the lottery was introduced, which put quite a lot of money into the improvement of some parks. Lottery funding, like charity funding and donations for parks, is welcome, as that it can be used to improve sports facilities, planting and maybe bring in allotments and growing spaces. What gifts never do, however, is take into account the longer-term requirements of funding, such as the need for staff and the need to keep the thing going. That is where central Government expenditure and their relationship with local authorities is so important.
My fundamental point is that the lesson from my lovely local park, Finsbury Park, is that, while we love that park, it needs to be properly funded so that it does not have to give up so much space every year for expensive concerts. The same thing applies elsewhere. Hyde Park is taken over by Winter Wonderland for several weeks. It is fine that people enjoy Winter Wonderland, but what about people who just want to go to Hyde park to walk about? They cannot do it because of that. The same applies in many other places, so we need balance.
I hope the Government will look again at the two Committee interventions on this issue, which were helpful and designed to improve parks and open spaces, and realise their value. I hope the Government will say that they are prepared to ensure there is guaranteed funding. When dealing with overall planning, it is important to protect our green belt but also to protect our public open spaces and parks. We should also ensure that, with every major planning operation, there is improvement in the amount of open space and the creation of allotments and community growing spaces.
Our children need to be brought up to understand that we have to live with nature, not on top of nature. That creates a better understanding and more support for progressive environmental policies in future. I put this forward today because I hope it will provide an opportunity for the Opposition and the Government to give their proposals for the funding of our beautiful parks all over the country.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for introducing this important debate, and for the opportunity to speak on it. As I said in my intervention, parks have a clear benefit for our communities, even in very rural areas such as Somerton and Frome, which I am proud to represent. Victoria Park, the oldest park in Frome, which opened in 1887, continues to hold many events throughout the calendar year.
It is therefore concerning to read that something approaching one in 10 of the UK’s parks are classified as in poor condition. A gradual decline in funding has seen hundreds of thousands—millions—taken away from park budgets, as local authorities have had a reduction in finances as a result of austerity measures. That decline in funding results in cuts to the hard-working, talented staff who take care of and love our public parks, and who ensure that they are an asset to our communities.
As many as 32% of our local authorities have had to cut frontline staff such as park rangers and litter-pickers, while 41% have had to cut management staff as well. The loss of staff inevitably leads to a reduction in the quality of the parks. Somerset Council, of which I was proud to be a member, and South Somerset District Council before that, have demonstrated the benefits of securing good funding for parks and rangers. I invite everybody to come to the parks in my part of my world. They have offered apprenticeship schemes to employ young people, training them in a variety of skills that are needed to maintain our public parks. That work is important on so many levels.
The Association for Public Service Excellence has tracked the age profiles of park staff over 10 years. The over-50 age range makes up 50% of the workforce, with most other age groups falling. With already stretched staffing, and as park staff reach retirement age, that could cause a significant issue in coming years. Initiatives such as those by Somerset Council demonstrate the importance of tackling this problem head on, although more funding is needed to continue programmes in Somerset and extend them around the country.
Local authorities such as Somerset Council have used the importance of parks to build up and emphasise important local cultural events, such as those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Islington North. There has been a focus on providing top-class facilities for visitors and improving people’s access to nature by putting on local events. Somerset’s parks offer a variety of events from dog shows to astronomy evenings to bring people in and experience what is on offer.
Work has also been undertaken to ensure that our parks are accessible. For example, there are mobility walking areas for people to access the spectacular nature of Somerset. That showcases how important parks are to Somerset. The county has around 95.4 square metres per person of public park and green space, well above the national average of 30 square metres. We are extremely lucky in my county. In order to protect our important green space, Somerset Council has worked with Fields in Trust to protect our parks. I welcome the clear steps taken by the council to safeguard those spaces. It is important that we do that to protect the natural biodiversity of the parks and green spaces that we love.
We live in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. More than 40% of native species are in decline. To arrest those changes, we must protect park funding. Our parks are also valuable for the health and welfare benefits they provide to us all. Public Health England has recognised the value of parks for people’s physical and mental health and, as I have already mentioned, it is understood that people living in areas with higher amounts of green space have shown reduced mortality and a reduction in the likelihood of cardiovascular disease.
Public parks are important cultural, environmental and public health assets. We must safeguard them for future generations. We must do that by protecting their funding and allowing local authorities the opportunity to maintain their parks.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I shall begin by welcoming the Minister. This is our first outing together. Maybe we will have a few more before we go our separate ways again, but I do not think this is something we will fall out about.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on his excellent speech about the importance of parks. He articulated very well how important they are and how, during the pandemic, we all came to a greater understanding of their importance. He set out the historical context as well, with many wealthy benefactors often the progenitors of local parks. Local communities have worked together and, indeed, local authorities have also done a great deal of work over many years to secure and preserve those open spaces that otherwise might well have been concreted over.
I thank the right hon. Member for mentioning Birkenhead Park. It is not quite in my constituency, but it is not that far away. It would be remiss of me not to mention some of the excellent parks in Ellesmere Port and Neston. We have Whitby Park, Rivacre Valley, Stanney Wood and Lees Lane, which are all important open spaces. They are often kept going by friends groups and volunteers, who do a really important job in covering the sometimes difficult job of local authorities in maintaining those spaces to the levels we would like to see. The right hon. Member for Islington North has referred to that and I will come back to it shortly.
The right hon. Member referred to the Select Committee reports, and the 2017 report in particular clearly spells out the health and economic benefits that parks and open spaces can have. The report quoted studies that found that, every year,
“green spaces in England contribute £2.2 billion to public health.”
It was also mentioned that the UK Natural Environment Assessment found that caring for ecosystems had the potential—I use the word “potential” advisedly—to add £30 billion a year to the UK’s economy. The Select Committee also noted the benefits that accrued to local areas in terms of attracting investment and securing jobs, referring particularly to Edinburgh City Council’s social return investment model as proof of the basis for economic benefits and how it was concluded from that scheme in particular that every £1 invested in parks resulted in a £12 return in benefits delivered. That is not something that any of us can ignore.
Both the right hon. Member for Islington North and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) have spelled out clearly that there are many positive impacts in our communities from parks and green spaces. It is perhaps counterintuitive, possibly disappointing and almost certainly frustrating that our general impression is that parks have been undervalued in the past decade.
The Association for Public Service Excellence noted in its “State of UK Public Parks 2021” report that in the past decade, funding for parks from local government has collapsed. It estimated that since 2010, parks have lost £690 million-worth of funding, with parks now making up less than 3% of local authority budgets on average. With constricted budgets, staff maintaining parks have also had to be cut, which is where the important work of friends groups comes in. The APSE survey found that 32% of local authorities have had to make frontline cuts to staff during this period. Sadly, those cuts were not even distributed evenly across the UK. We know that 87% of the UK’s most deprived councils have had their spending cut since 2010, compared with only 58% of those in the most affluent areas. Given what we know about the importance of parks in driving down health inequalities, the fact that that funding cut has disproportionately affected those areas with less economic power is a cause for double concern. We all know that the austerity enforced on local authorities since 2010 has had a huge impact on their ability to deliver. We know that their spending power fell by almost 20% between 2009-10 and 2019-20. Despite a partial recovery in recent times, spending power is still more than 10% below what it was before. That has resulted in many local authorities really struggling.
We know that there are huge, increased pressures on local authorities, particularly in children’s services and social care, and more pressure is on the way. It is not surprising, with the financial pressures faced by local authorities, that there is a temptation for them to monetise some of these assets a little more. I do not criticise them for that—we know that they are in a difficult position—but we must be alive to the risks that brings: restricting access to all, reducing the quality of the environment and ultimately undermining the very essence of what parks are meant to be there for. The right hon. Member for Islington North talked about how Finsbury Park can be out of action for several weeks at a time. I agree with him that there is no problem with using parks for these events if they raise funds, but a balance must be struck between the local authority’s ability to use the park for those events and the rights of other users to enjoy the benefits of the park.
One other way that the pressure on local authorities and open spaces has manifested itself is through the introduction of estate management fees, whereby management companies simply adopt the work that the local authorities used to undertake, leaving homeowners having to pay twice for exactly the same services. I have said before that unless we get a proper grip on estate management fees, they will become a new payment protection insurance scandal. What do we say to residents who pay additional fees but then see non-residents, who have not paid the fees to clean up and maintain the park, using their facilities? How long before residents demand that open spaces are open only to those who have paid management fees? Be in no doubt: this issue will continue to corrode community cohesion unless we find a compelling answer to these questions. The Minister knows that I will come back to this repeatedly, because I do not think that we have really understood the scale of the issue just yet.
The concerns articulated by the right hon. Member for Islington North about the need to protect and preserve our parks and open spaces are very much a live issue. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response from the Minister, particularly to the Select Committee recommendations that we have heard about.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for calling this important debate and articulating so clearly the value of our parks estate and the challenges that it faces. I also thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) for her remarks. I recently visited her constituency a number of times, and I can fully attest to the beauty of Somerset and its parks. Like the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), I will shamelessly plug some of my local parks, such as Locke Park, Lily Park, the Saltburn Valley gardens and Smiths Dock Park. Like him, I commend the friends groups who care for our parks and cemeteries too, such as the Friends of Redcar Cemetery and the Friends of Eston cemetery.
The UK’s 27,000 public parks are treasured assets that have been enriching the lives of our communities for more than 150 years. They provide opportunities for leisure, relaxation, exercise and connection to nature. However, parks are also fundamental to community cohesion, physical and mental health and wellbeing, biodiversity, climate change mitigation and civic pride. As the right hon. Member for Islington North said, during covid they were also a lifeline, providing a breathing space where people could relax, exercise and enjoy the outdoors, even in the most difficult of times.
The Government are fully committed to creating better access to parks and green spaces for all our communities. Although the main responsibility for urban parks lies with local authorities, the Government have made a number of targeted investments to support the sector. In 2022, as the right hon. Member mentioned, we launched the £9 million levelling-up parks fund to improve access to green spaces in disadvantaged neighbourhoods across the UK. I am pleased to share with the House today the fact that 90% of funded local authorities reported increased access to green spaces in disadvantaged urban areas, such as those that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned.
The levelling-up parks fund is an immediate example of the Government’s commitment to levelling up communities across the country. However, as has also been touched on, there is also lottery funding. Since 2019, the National Lottery Heritage Fund has invested over £36 million in parks and green spaces. Since that fund began in 1996, it has awarded over £950 million to create and restore more than 900 individual parks. As the right hon. Member may know, Caledonian Park in Islington received a grant of almost £2 million from the National Lottery Heritage Fund in 2016 to restore the historic clock tower and market railings.
Furthermore, in two rounds of pocket park funding in 2018 and 2019, the Government awarded grants of over £5 million to 266 community groups working in partnership with local authorities to create new community green spaces or to transform existing parks. Also, through the community ownership fund, the Government are awarding funding to a range of assets that are important to local communities. The fund has already invested over £500,000 to support five parks and green spaces. I should also mention the £2.6 billion UK shared prosperity fund, which is providing new funding for local investment. Local authorities will decide how to use that funding to best serve their communities, including by investing in improving and developing their parks.
The Government have always been clear that local authorities must have the freedom to choose how to use their budgets to best serve their local areas and priorities, which includes how they support their parks and green spaces. I am pleased to see that there are many examples across the country of local authorities developing innovative practice and partnerships to manage their parks estate. However, as the right hon. Member mentioned, it is important that those partnerships do not impinge on communities’ access to those parks. A balance has to be struck.
The right hon. Member may know that, in order to support parks, Camden Council and Islington Council have agreed a joint parks for health strategy. Health-related projects and social prescribing are being rolled out across both boroughs, and Islington Council is incorporating parks for health in its public realm by greening its highways and creating new green spaces.
Central Government continue to support local authorities in this regard. The Government have helped local authorities to develop innovative practice through the future parks accelerator programme, which we jointly funded with the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the National Trust in 2019. That programme funded eight local authority areas to pilot new ways of managing parks estates. The results are currently being evaluated and disseminated across the sector.
The green flag awards have been mentioned a few times already. The addition of the green flag awards scheme—which is owned by my Department and run by the Keep Britain Tidy charity under licence—promotes the national standard for parks and green spaces across the UK. Over 2,000 green flags were awarded this year, demonstrating that the parks that won them had met the highest-quality standard. I am also proud of the contribution of community groups and volunteers, such as the friends of parks groups, which have already been mentioned, in designing and managing local parks. Over 400 green flag awards have already been awarded to community-led parks, with many more to come, I am sure.
Getting the best for our parks is not just about spending more or dictating how local authorities should use their budgets. It is about communities, health authorities, park sector stakeholders, and local and national Government working together to get the best outcomes for our parks estates. That is why the Government have reflected on the importance of access to good-quality green space as a key factor for health in a wide range of policies, including the childhood obesity strategy, the loneliness strategy, the clean air strategy, “Sporting Future” and “The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health”. The Government have set clear expectations for how parks and green spaces should be incorporated into our communities in the national planning policy framework and the national design guide and code. We have outlined our ambition to ensure that every household is within a 15-minute walk from a quality green or blue space in our environment improvement plan, which we published in January this year.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the Minister for what he is saying. Does he think that there should be guidance from central Government about the amount of time that a park can be exclusively used for private interests or private commercial interests, in order to protect the generality of public access to what is valuable open space?
Jacob Young
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution. It touches on his points about what he feels are abuses happening in places such as Finsbury Park and Hyde Park. I would say that those decisions are best made locally. Obviously, there is a local democracy angle at play in local authorities, and authorities are held to account at the ballot box every couple of years. Certainly from my party’s perspective, we would always go to the ballot box ensuring that access to local parks was important.
Finally, if the House will indulge me, I want to share briefly my memories growing up as a child, visiting Albert Park in Middlesbrough. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it was a park gifted by a wealthy benefactor—our first mayor, Henry Bolckow—to the people of the town in 1865. Over 150 years later, that park is still in the centre of the town. When I was growing up, it played host to the Middlesbrough Mela—a celebration of the south Asian community in Teesside. We also have Stewart Park, where as a kid I would go and see the animals. Years later, I visited when it played host to BBC Radio 1’s Big Weekend in 2019.
As we have heard, parks are about history, celebration, memories and culture. They are the centre of communities and key to healthy communities. I add my thanks to those who protect and maintain our parks, particularly those in Redcar and Cleveland but nationally too, and to the armies of volunteers who do the same. Going forward, we must ensure that our parks’ workforces are well equipped with the skills to meet the current and future expectations of our communities. Learning and best practice from current park programmes needs to be embedded to develop and protect our parks for the future. We must work together to ensure that these treasured assets are passed on to future generations in the best possible condition, so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy them just as much as we have.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am pleased that we had this debate today; it gave us the chance to set out the issues facing us. I understand what the Minister said about the use of parks for mental health recuperation and the generality of people’s needs, and I fully support that. I hope that we will recognise that increasing pressure on local authorities to get an income from parks can be detrimental to the basic needs of parks. I look to the Government to at least set out guidelines on the amount of time that a park, or even part of it, should be taken out of public use and into exclusive private use, because I see a trend that is rather worrying—to me in my own area and, I suspect, to people all over the country.
I thank the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for what they said, and I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke). We value our parks; we love our parks, and they are the only open space that so many of our people ever get access to. We should value them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered funding for parks.
Written Statements
Shared Services Connected Ltd: Sale of Cabinet Office Stake
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
I am pleased to announce that the Cabinet Office has exercised its option to sell its 25% stake in Shared Services Connected Ltd (SSCL) to its joint venture partner, Sopra Steria Group SA, which owns the remaining 75% stake. The sale is expected to complete in early November. Metric Impact Sale proceeds £82.3 million Hold valuation The price achieved is above retention value Public Sector Net Borrowing The sale will generate cross-Government productivity savings and reduce future debt interest costs for Government, offset by the loss of dividends Government might otherwise have received from its shareholding Public Sector Net Debt Immediate reduction of £25.3 million—£82.3-£57 million Public Sector Net Liabilities Immediately improved by £34.1 million—£82.3-£48.2 million—less the extent to which the £57 million retained by the Cabinet Office is spent Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities Immediately improved by £34.1 million—£82.3-£48.2 million—less the extent to which the £57 million retained by the Cabinet Office is spent
Sale of the stake will generate cash proceeds of £82.3 million payable on completion. Of the £57 million proceeds retained by the Cabinet Office, up to £45 million of the proceeds will be reinvested into accelerating programmes that increase cross-Government productivity. This will include a particular emphasis on digital capability across Government.
The change in ownership arrangements is expected to affect neither the management nor staff of SSCL. Sopra Steria has confirmed that SSCL will remain a key component of Sopra Steria’s UK family of businesses and that there will be no impact on services to customers.
Background and rationale
The SSCL joint venture was established in 2013 as part of a strategy to consolidate and transform the provision of shared business support services to central Government and the wider public sector. Founding customers included the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency.
Over the last 10 years, SSCL has successfully expanded its customer base to cover other public sector bodies including the Home Office, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Defence, Metropolitan Police and the Construction Industry Training Board. Revenue has grown from £123 million in the year to 31 December 2014 to £292 million in the year to 31 December 2022.
It had always been envisaged that the Cabinet Office might one day sell its stake. When the joint venture was established, Sopra Steria granted the Cabinet Office a put option exercisable in 2022 and 2023.
The sale follows a review triggered by the approaching expiry of the put option. The Cabinet Office concluded that SSCL had been a successful joint venture delivering significant savings and value to the Government and the taxpayer, that the business was now well-established and that it was time for it to move to the next stage in its evolution. The sale price was based on an independent valuation advisory report and exceeds the Cabinet Office’s retention value. As at 31 March 2023, the carrying value of the stake and related put option in the Cabinet Office accounts was some £48.2 million.
Fiscal Impacts
The impact on the fiscal aggregates, in line with fiscal forecasting convention, are not discounted to present value. The net impact of the sale on a selection of fiscal metrics is summarised as follows:
[HCWS1087]
Relationships, Sex and Health Education
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Earlier this year, I wrote to schools to set out that schools can and should share curriculum materials with parents, in light of the current concerns in relation to materials used to teach relationships, sex and health education (RSHE).
Parents are among their children’s most important teachers. It is vital that they know what their children are being taught in relationships, sex and health education, and that they are reassured that the materials used by schools are thoughtful and appropriate.
Today, I have written to schools again to provide further information in the light of some important cases. This letter confirms that, where contractual clauses exist that seek to prevent schools sharing resources with parents at all, they are void and unenforceable. This is because they contradict the clear public policy interest in ensuring that parents are aware of what their children are being taught in relationships, sex and health education.
The letter is clear that, if faced with such clauses, schools should write to providers asking for those clauses to be withdrawn on the ground that they are unenforceable. In the event that providers refuse to withdraw the clauses, legislation allows schools to still share resources proportionately, for the purposes of explaining to parents what is being taught.
For example, it is best practice to do this via a “parent portal” or, if this is not possible, by a presentation. This is providing that access to the documents is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgment of the provider’s authorship and includes a statement, which parents agree to as a condition of access, that the content should not be copied or shared further except as authorised by copyright law. Where relevant and possible, IT systems should also be in place to prevent downloading.
Where parents cannot attend a presentation or they are unable to view materials via a “parent portal”, schools may provide copies of materials to parents to take home on request, providing parents agree to a similar statement that they will not copy the content or share it further except as authorised by copyright law.
The points made in both of my letters will be reflected in the updated statutory RSHE guidance, on which we will publicly consult. This additional content will help to further strengthen schools’ position, as they have a statutory duty to have regard to the RSHE guidance and can communicate this duty to their external providers.
We are clear that in all circumstances, parents have a right to see the materials being used to teach RSHE, which is why we have written to schools and parents today clarifying the legal position and reiterating that right.
[HCWS1086]
Gaza: Humanitarian Situation and UK Humanitarian Efforts
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Today I am updating the House on the UK’s response to the situation in Gaza.
The UK is committed to easing the desperate—and deteriorating—humanitarian crisis in Gaza, while standing alongside the people of Israel against the terrorist group Hamas and supporting Israel’s right to defend itself.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, announced an additional £20 million in humanitarian aid for civilians in Gaza in response to the severe humanitarian crisis.
This assistance is in addition to the £10 million of aid announced by the Prime Minister last week and brings the total UK contribution to the occupied Palestinian territories since Hamas’ terrorist attack against Israel on 7 October to £30 million—doubling our existing aid commitment this year and making us one of the largest donors.
The funding will allow key UN agencies and trusted partners, including the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), a number of whom have presence in Gaza and Egypt, to provide essential relief items and services. The aid will respond to critical food, water, healthcare, shelter and protection needs for those affected by this severe humanitarian crisis. We are committed to ensuring UK aid is allocated to address the greatest needs.
The Prime Minister welcomed the limited opening of the Rafah crossing—it is important progress, and testament to the power of diplomacy. Sustained, unimpeded and safe humanitarian access must be allowed so civilians can receive vital, lifesaving support, including food, water, shelter, and fuel as quickly and effectively as possible.
Civilians must be protected and we continue to stress to all the importance of humanitarian access. Hamas, who have no regard for Palestinian civilians, continue to indiscriminately terrorise the Israeli people and the region as a whole. We unequivocally support Israel’s right to self-defence. The UK has been clear that international humanitarian law must be followed and every effort made to avoid civilian casualties.
The UK is at the forefront of the global effort to help Palestinian people access the vital lifesaving support they need. We will consider further support depending on the changing humanitarian needs on the ground.
This support goes beyond funding alone and includes intensive diplomatic efforts to prevent regional escalation, back Israel’s security and support long-term solutions to the crisis in the middle east. The Prime Minister raised humanitarian support in his meetings with the leaders of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Palestinian Authority last week. During the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit, he spoke to counterparts in Egypt, Turkey and Qatar to work with them to push for agreement on ongoing humanitarian access to Gaza. Lord Ahmad has also spoken with the Foreign Ministers of Iraq, Tunisia, Bahrain, Morocco, Algeria and the Palestinian Authority. I am in regular contact with Development Ministers and our humanitarian partners to discuss response and co-ordination efforts.
[HCWS1091]
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Appointed Person Report
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Today I lay before Parliament the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Appointed Person report covering England and Wales for the period 2022-23. The Appointed Person is independent of Government and scrutinises the circumstances and manner in which search and seizure powers conferred by the Act are exercised without prior judicial approval and where nothing is seized for more than 48 hours.
I am pleased that we are now able to publish the Appointed Person’s latest report. The report details that search and seizure powers were used in these circumstances on seven occasions.
The Appointed Person has confirmed in the report that he is satisfied that the criteria required for justifying the searches without prior judicial approval were met and that the powers of search were exercised appropriately. The Appointed Person has made no new recommendations for the period. This would indicate that the powers are being used reasonably and appropriately in accordance with the Act. We will continue to monitor the way that the powers have been used closely.
Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS1089]
Director of Labour Market Enforcement: Publication of Interim Annual Strategy 2023-24
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
Alongside my hon. Friend the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business (Kevin Hollinrake), I am publishing today the Labour Market Enforcement Annual Strategy for 2023-24, submitted by the DLME Margaret Beels OBE. The strategy will be available on www.gov.uk.
The Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s role was created by the Immigration Act 2016 to bring better focus and strategic co-ordination to the enforcement of labour market legislation by the three enforcement bodies which are responsible for state enforcement of specific employment rights:
The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS);
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs National Minimum and Living Wage enforcement team—HMRC NMW/NLW team; and
The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA).
Under section 2 of the Act, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement is required to prepare an annual labour market enforcement strategy, which assesses the scale and nature of non-compliance in the labour market and sets priorities for future enforcement by the three enforcement bodies and the allocation of resources needed to deliver those priorities. The annual strategy, once approved, is laid before Parliament.
The director is a statutory office-holder independent from Government, but accountable to the Department for Business and Trade’s Secretary of State and the Home Secretary.
In line with the obligations under the Act, Margaret Beels submitted this strategy for 2023-24 on 31 March 2023.
This strategy continues on from the 2022-23 strategy by using the same four themes to provide an assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance and notes sectors where the risk level has changed. The strategy sets out the DLME’s desire to achieve improved cohesion and join-up between the DLME and the three state enforcement bodies through non-legislative measures, including suggestions of where the enforcement bodies and sponsor Departments should be focusing their efforts.
The Government’s view is that the enforcement bodies have been funded sufficiently to deliver the activities set out in the strategy.
The DLME carried out stakeholder engagement for the 2023-24 strategy with a call for evidence and also by engaging with the enforcement bodies prior to submission.
As with previous reports, these recommendations are not formal Government policy. We have worked with the director, their office, and the enforcement bodies to understand the recommendations, and will carefully consider them moving forward.
[HCWS1088]
Investigatory Arrangements following Police Use of Force and Police Driving-related Incidents: Terms
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Police officers across England and Wales do an incredibly difficult job, in some instances having to make life or death decisions in a split second to keep us safe. It is vital that the public and officers have clarity and confidence in the accountability system relating to police use of force and police driving, including the efficacy of investigations.
Successive Governments have referred to the need to consider the balance between ensuring the police can do their job to keep the public safe, while ensuring operational guidelines are complied with and officers act within the law.
On 24 September I announced a Home Office-led review to assess the existing legal frameworks and guidance on practice that underpin police use of force and police driving, and the framework for investigation of any incidents that may occur. It will examine:
Whether use of force or police driving frameworks provide clear, understandable and well understood guidance for officers;
Whether a lack of clarity or the frameworks themselves in any way inhibit or prevent the police from carrying out their role to protect life;
Whether they serve to maintain public confidence in the police, in particular for those impacted by police use of force;
How the UK meets its obligation to independently investigate situations where a death or serious injury (DSI) results from an incident involving law enforcement;
Whether necessary lessons have previously been understood and acted upon after historic incidents; and
Whether individuals are held to account appropriately.
I am pleased to announce that today we will publish the terms of reference for the review on www.gov.uk. A copy of the terms of reference will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
These make it clear that the review will not consider live or ongoing investigations or proceedings. The need to ensure it does not in any way prejudice or interfere with ongoing or concluded investigations or proceedings is paramount. To that end, the Home Office will keep under consideration any potential effect of the review on such investigations or proceedings.
The review will be co-ordinated by the Home Office, reporting to me and working with other Government Departments such as the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office. It will aim to provide findings to me by the end of year.
[HCWS1092]
Building Safety: Second Staircases
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
This Government are committed to ensuring that people can be confident that our buildings are safe. The Building Safety Act set up a new, robust regime, with a new Building Safety Regulator at its heart. In recent years, we have also changed statutory guidance on fire safety, with new measures including:
a ban on combustible materials for residential buildings, hotels, hospitals and student accommodation above 18m, and additional guidance for residential buildings between 11m-18m;
a lower threshold for the provision of sprinklers in new blocks of flats from 30m to 11 m;
a requirement for wayfinding signage for firefighters in residential buildings above 11m;
requirements for residential buildings over 18m to have an Evacuation Alert System, and for new residential buildings over 11m to include a Secure Information Box (SIB).
We must never be complacent in our approach to safety. In July, I confirmed that I intend to introduce new guidance requiring second staircases in new residential buildings in England above 18m. This not only reflects the views of experts including the National Fire Chiefs Council and Royal Institute of British Architects, but also brings us into line with countries—including Hong Kong and the UAE—in having a reasonable threshold for requiring second staircases.
I can now announce the intended transitional arrangements that will accompany this change to Approved Document B. From the date when we publish and confirm those changes to Approved Document B formally, developers will have 30 months during which new building regulations applications can conform to either the guidance as it exists today, or to the updated guidance requiring second staircases. When those 30 months have elapsed, all applications will need to conform to the new guidance.
Any approved applications that do not follow the new guidance will have 18 months for construction to get underway in earnest. If it does not, they will have to submit a new building regulations application, following the new guidance. Sufficient progress for this purpose will match the definition set out in the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023, and will therefore be when the pouring of concrete for either the permanent placement of trench, pad or raft foundations or for the permanent placement of piling has started.
With these transitional arrangements, we will ensure that projects that already have planning permission with a single staircase, the safety of which will have been considered as part of that application, can continue without further delay if they choose. It means that, for some years yet, we will continue to see 18m plus buildings with single staircases coming to the market. I want to be absolutely clear that existing and upcoming single-staircase buildings are not inherently unsafe. They will not later need to have a second staircase added when built in accordance with relevant standards, well-maintained and properly managed. I expect lenders, managing agents, insurers, and others to behave accordingly, and not to impose onerous additional requirements, hurdles or criteria on single-staircase buildings in lending, pricing, management or any other respect.
Those who live in new buildings over 18m can be reassured that those buildings are already subject to the additional scrutiny of the new, enhanced building safety regime. Their fire safety arrangements are scrutinised in detail at the new building control gateways and planning gateway one.
I realise that developers and the wider market are waiting for the design details that will go into Approved Document B. The Building Safety Regulator is working to agree these rapidly, and I will make a further announcement soon. In the meantime, I am confident that this announcement of the intended transitional arrangements will give the market confidence to continue building the high-quality homes that this country needs.
[HCWS1090]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
My Lords, there is unlikely to be a Division in the Chamber today but if there is, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before this House on 4 September 2023. Fluorinated greenhouse gases, also known as F-gases, are powerful greenhouse gases used mainly in refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, as well as for other uses such as medical inhalers. The most commonly used F-gases are known as hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.
The purpose of this instrument is to correct a technical error in Regulation 517 of 2014, on fluorinated greenhouse gases, known as the F-gas regulation, which is retained EU law. The correction will ensure that annual quotas, which limit the quantity of HFCs that can be placed on the market in Great Britain each year, are calculated as intended. Pursuant to the Windsor Framework, separate EU F-gas legislation and systems apply in Northern Ireland.
For Great Britain, the F-gas regulation has provisions to phase down the amount of HFCs placed on the market for the first time. This is implemented using a quota system. Importers and producers may place on the market only up to the amount of the quota they hold. The regulation sets out a phase-down schedule, with the starting point being 2015. Every three years, the amount of quota issued to businesses is reduced, thereby driving a move to lower carbon options, while giving industry time and flexibility to choose how to transition to them.
The F-gas regulation provides for a 79% reduction of HFCs placed on the market by 2030. We have already reduced HFC levels by 55% since 2015 through quota limits. Annual quota amounts allocated to businesses are calculated based on reference values. Article 16(3) provides for recalculation of the reference values by the appropriate regulator, based on the annual average of HFCs placed on the market by a business from a specified start date.
This statutory instrument corrects a technical error made in previous amending legislation relating to that start date. The start date should have been January 2015 but was erroneously changed to January 2021. If the error is not corrected, it will result in too little quota being issued to businesses. This was not the intended outcome when the F-gas regulation was retained and amended as part of the UK’s exit from the European Union. The intention was to retain the substance of the regulation, including the calculation of reference values and pace of phase-down of HFCs. Issuing too little quota to businesses would cause significant problems for HFC supply into Great Britain, disrupting sectors across the economy and business confidence.
The territorial application of this instrument is England, Wales and Scotland. The Environment Agency performs the functions set out in Article 16 of the F-gas regulation as the appropriate regulator for England and, under directions from Scottish and Welsh Governments, for Scotland and Wales. A GB-wide F-gas regime currently operates under the regulation. There is an F-gas common framework in place through which the UK, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations collaborate, including on the application of the GB-wide F-gas regime. Using the common framework working arrangements, devolved Administrations were engaged throughout the development of this instrument, and agreement between officials on its provisions was reached. I am pleased to say that ministerial consent has been provided by the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered this instrument and cleared it without reporting it to the House at its meeting on 12 September.
In conclusion, making this correction is essential to ensure that our ambitious and world-leading phase-down is not undermined. We have already reduced HFC levels by 55% since 2015, through the F-gas regulation. To meet our international obligations, we also remain committed to reducing HFC consumption by 85% by 2036. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations. At first glance, this seems like a very minor matter, a mistake having been made in the date of implementation of the regulations, 2021 having been substituted for 2015. That technical error does not appear to have been picked up quickly, despite annual quotas for HFCs being set and their importance to a range of essential products, including refrigeration, air conditioning, medical inhalers and fire extinguishers.
HFCs are regulated by quota, which, had the original date of 2021 been adhered to, would have resulted in businesses receiving too little quota. However, levels of HFCs have been reducing since 2015 by 55%, as the Minister has said, so progress is being made towards the 79% reduction required by 2030. I assume that the error was picked up only when the phase-down and three-year recalculation took place. The next recalculation is due in January 2024, and the deadline for its submission is 31 October, so it is a very tight timeline to correct the calculation error.
Although the recalculation does not affect technical operability, not having a consultation is interesting. The businesses that would have been adversely affected had this error not been identified and corrected would, presumably, have suffered at least a disadvantage to their operation, and I would have expected them to have a view on this and to have been consulted. There is also no impact assessment; it has been deemed unnecessary as the instrument corrects a technical error, but that error relates directly to the level of HFCs that can be used in the various products dependent on them.
Should the other place and this Committee refuse to endorse these regulations, there would be an impact on a number of particularly important businesses. However, I understand completely that, at the time of Brexit, the sheer number of SIs passing through Defra was enormous and some errors were unfortunately made. My only surprise was that this one took a while to surface. Nevertheless, I accept the importance of this SI and am content to support it as it stands.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of the regulations before us. As has been stated, this is an unusually straightforward statutory instrument as it seeks solely to correct a date error in a piece of retained EU law relating to fluorinated greenhouse gases. Therefore, I plan to keep my contribution short.
However, to reiterate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, it is clear that the technical error, as outlined in Paragraph 6.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which changed the baseline date for the annual quota system from 2015 to 2021, would have a detrimental impact on the businesses affected and make compliance challenging. It is also contrary to the policy intent. However, it is concerning that the SI is before us only today, when the deadline for recalculating the underlying reference values is 31 October. In other words, the dataset needs to be calculated next week, yet His Majesty’s Government have put this before us only seven days before the deadline. When was the error identified? Could the department have brought forward the instrument earlier to give assurance and clarity to business? Can the Minister also confirm that this is the last example of this error, and that we should not expect to see any more SIs of a similar nature in the coming weeks?
While I have the Minister’s attention, Paragraph 14.1 of the EM notes that a wider review of the F-gas regulation is under way. Can he update your Lordships’ House on the timelines for the review? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their interest in this matter and their contributions to the debate. I reiterate that the amendment made by this instrument relates to the correction of a technical error in the F-gas regulation. The amendment will meet the original intended objective of retaining the substance and phasedown set out in the EU regulation when that regulation was domesticated following our EU exit. This correction will ensure that the Environment Agency recalculates the reference values correctly by the statutory deadline date of 31 October, as noble Lords have pointed out.
On why this has been laid so close to the 31 October deadline, the instrument uses the power in Section 14(2) of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The Act received Royal Assent only on 29 June, meaning that there was no time to lay the instrument until now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked how this technical issue arose. The error occurred when we implemented the amending legislation to retain the EU regulation in UK law during the EU exit. Consequently, the error was identified after that period had passed. We did not consult, although we have consulted industry informally and we are responding to what is demanded by these companies. Devolved Administrations were also engaged throughout the development of this instrument and agreement between officials on this provision has been reached. Ministerial consent has been provided by Wales and Scotland. Wider consultation was not deemed necessary, as the amendments introduced by this instrument relate to technical operability and there is no change in related existing policy.
A full impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because there is no impact as a result of its implementation. The instrument corrects a technical error that occurred when direct EU legislation was retained and amended as part of EU exit. The changes that it makes will meet the objective of retaining the substance and phasedown pace of the EU F-gas regulation and there is no change in the related existing policy. I think that noble Lords’ points have been covered and I commend the instrument.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Revised Guidance) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Revised Guidance) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 52nd Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before Parliament on 7 September 2023, relates to Prevent. Prevent is one of the pillars of Contest, the United Kingdom’s counterterrorism strategy. The aim of Prevent is to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It also extends to supporting the rehabilitation and disengagement of those already involved in terrorism. These aims could scarcely be more important.
Put simply, Prevent is an early intervention programme to keep all of us safe. To do so effectively, it requires front-line sectors across society, including education, healthcare, local authorities, criminal justice agencies and the police, to support this mission. This is why we have the Prevent duty, set out in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. It sits alongside long-established duties on professionals to protect people from a range of other harms, such as involvement in gangs or physical and sexual exploitation. The Prevent duty helps to ensure that people who are susceptible to radicalisation are offered timely interventions before it becomes too late.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute once again to the work of the police, security and intelligence services. It is difficult but it saves lives and, as I know the Minister will agree, it helps to keep us safe. Extremism is a stain on our society. It feeds on fear, which seeks to drive us apart, and is perpetuated in the name of one extreme ideology or another. All of us on this Committee and beyond are opposed to that.
We have seen a terrorist attack on Fishmongers’ Hall, close to London Bridge, the awful attack at a concert in Manchester and the brutal murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, among other shocking events, such as the bomb attack at the Dover Border Force centre. Was it not a bad mistake for the Shawcross review not to include that last incident as one of the examples of attacks listed in that report, given that it was not Islamist? It could have been included, because it took place months before the publication of the original review. The Minister will know that one of the criticisms of the review and worries about it is its supposed bias.
Ongoing threats are thwarted and ongoing action is taken by the police and security services. Can the Minister outline their view of these guidelines, as well as those of others who have to implement them, such as local authorities or education providers—schools and so on?
Prevent is extremely important, as is its purpose of early intervention to prevent radicalisation, extremism and, ultimately, terror. We, like others, support its actions in that regard. However, the strategy is seen by some as contentious and many feel that it is one-sided. How are the Government going to restore confidence and trust across the community in their work on Prevent and the broader counterterrorism strategy?
For example, we have seen the criticisms from the former head of counterterrorism police, Neil Basu, as well as others such as Amnesty International, of the Shawcross review. Is public confidence not increasingly important, given the current awful international situation in the Middle East and the domestic challenges it gives rise to in the UK? Have the Government reflected on these current events? Given the horror we all feel at what we have seen, is the guidance as up to date as it needs to be to reflect the current situation? Might further amendments be required in due course? Is anything planned?
As the Minister pointed out in his helpful introductory remarks, the independent review of Prevent contained 34 recommendations. Last month the Secretary of State announced that the Government had completed 10 of these, and we learned from the Minister today that 29 of them will be completed within a year. Have I understood that correctly? Does that mean the calendar year, or the end of 2024? It would be helpful to have clarification on that. That leaves five that are not going to be ready by the end of the year. Can the Minister tell us which five they are and why they will not be done over the same timeframe as the others?
One in five people arrested for terrorist offences in 2022 was aged under 18—a fourfold increase in just three years. How will the guidance contribute to combating this rapid growth in child terrorist suspects? Beyond the guidance, what else are the Government doing? Will they join us in committing to placing mental health practitioners in schools to help combat vulnerabilities that can make young people more susceptible to extremist narratives? What assessment have the Government made of Jonathan Hall’s recommendation on legislation regarding young terror suspects? How is the Home Office working with other departments to combat, for example, the terrorist threat posed by artificial intelligence, which is new but an increasing threat to us all, as we know?
Four of the nine declared terrorist attacks in the UK since 2018 were perpetrated by serving or newly released prisoners, but the review found that
“there have been delays to staff beginning Prevent training and to extremist prisoners beginning rehabilitative programmes. These delays are attributed to staffing and resourcing issues”.
Given the seriousness with which we should regard four out of nine of the declared terrorist offences having been committed by serving or recently released prisoners, what action has the Secretary of State taken since the independent review to address this and combat radicalisation in prisons?
The Minister will probably agree that Prevent is obviously just one part of a wider counterterrorism and counterextremism strategy. It is just one pillar, as the Minister mentioned, of the Contest strategy. None the less, the review and the Government’s response focus at points on targeting those most likely to commit terrorist acts, but also on wider non-violent extremism. Given that there is some confusion about the central objectives of Prevent, as outlined in this guidance, that could also lead to confusion among those implementing the guidance on what the true focus needs to be. Does the guidance make this clearer than the independent review and the government response earlier in the year—is the focus on individuals who may commit terrorist acts, or on combating wider non-violent extremism? Can the Government clarify where their emphasis and the balance lies? The counterextremism strategy as a whole has not been updated since 2015. Will the Government now confirm that this will take place? What else are the Government going to do to look beyond Prevent to combat extremism?
In February of this year, the Government stated that the ministerial Prevent oversight board would be “refreshed”, having not met since 2018. Has this refresh happened and has the board now met, or are we still waiting for it to meet?
The building of consensus is crucial, particularly around a voluntary engagement programme. The scourge of extremism, as we have seen, whether it be anti-Semitism, Islamism, or the extreme right—whatever it is—is one we all wish to see tackled. There are still very real questions to be asked and challenges for any Government to meet. But the defeat of terrorism and extremism, in whatever form they take, and doing all we can to prevent individuals and communities becoming involved in terrorism or suffering from the threat of terrorism or extremism, is in all our interests and something we all want our Government to succeed in—whichever Government we have.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his contribution. He has asked a number of questions and I will do my best to answer to them all.
Before I do that, I join the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in applauding the work of the security services and the various agencies that keep us all safe, and thank them for it. I include in that the officials in the Home Office, who are often rather overlooked when we are handing out praise to our security services, but who do a considerable amount of work and of thinking about how best to apply these rules in an operational situation. I re-assert that the core objective here is to strengthen the Prevent system, which is a vital component of the counterterrorism apparatus, and in giving my answers I will endeavour to explain why.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about public confidence and trust in the system and raised the issue of the Dover attack. Of course, the Independent Review of Prevent was led by Sir William Shawcross. He was an independent reviewer, so he decided on the content of the report. I am unable to comment on why he made that decision or what prompted it.
It is perhaps worth digressing and looking at the state of play regarding the extreme right-wing threat we face, because that does feed into this subject. We have accepted the Independent Review of Prevent’s recommendation to ensure that a consistent and proportionate threshold is in place across all the Prevent workstreams. Prevent is now guided by the principles of the new security threat check, which is recommended in the IRP. This series of principles informs our strategic approach, which asks us to consider whether actions are proportionate against the UK’s current terrorism and extremism threat picture. That means that the Home Office approaches and products clearly show how they are relevant to meeting Prevent’s objectives and responding to the threat of terrorism.
We are also rolling out updated training so that practitioners can better understand the threat and in particular the ideological causes of terrorism. The Home Office has undertaken research on Prevent referrals to better under understand them and to improve how they are recorded. Better understanding of the threat, strengthened training and improved processes ensure that we tackle disparities.
However, the primary domestic terrorist threat comes from Islamist terrorism, which accounts for approximately 67% of attacks since 2018, about three-quarters of the MI5 case load and 64% of those in custody for terrorism-related offences. The remainder of the UK domestic terrorist threat is driven almost exclusively by extreme right-wing terrorism, which amounts to approximately 22% of attacks since 2018, about one-quarter of the MI5 case load and 28% of those in custody for terrorism-connected offences.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt; I meant to include something else in my remarks. What the Minister is saying is very helpful. Can he comment—as far as he is able to—on the Home Secretary’s meeting with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police regarding how existing laws may be used with respect to what we have seen on our streets?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will get to that, if the noble Lord will bear with me.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As on previous occasions, there are likely to be Prevent referrals related directly to this conflict and from across the ideological spectrum. In direct answer to the noble Lord’s question about whether the Government are thinking about this, guidance has been issued on the appropriate thresholds. We have written to partners to ensure that they are aware of the escalating risks and that there is appropriate management of their Channel intervention programme case loads. Community tensions and the appropriate responses will be nuanced in each area. Prevent is continuing to work closely and intensively with local authorities and other partners, including DfE, DLUHC and CTP, to spot local risks and bolster community resilience, including encouraging interfaith dialogue.
On the Home Secretary’s meeting with Sir Mark, I was not there so I cannot give any personal reflections on what was discussed. Of course, I have seen what was in the papers with regard to Sir Mark’s cause. We are working with the police to ensure that hate crime and the glorification of terror are met with the full force of the law. Hamas is a proscribed organisation responsible for the biggest massacre of the Jewish people in one day since the Holocaust—we should not forget that. Support for it is a criminal act which carries up to 14 years in prison. The DfE’s counterextremism team is actively gathering from media sources and contributions from the CST information on claims of student group support for Hamas, and we are collaborating with the Office for Students to ensure the exchange of information regarding compliance-related issues, particularly those related to Prevent duties, and to address concerns about preventing unlawful speech on campus. It would be unwise of me to speculate on Sir Mark’s specific comments, but a raft of laws is already available to the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about the number of recommendations in the Shawcross report. We have completed 15 of the 34 recommendations and 83 of the 120 tasks, but, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the independent review. We expect to have implemented at least 29 of the 34 within a year of publication—February next year—and the rest shortly thereafter. I am afraid that I do not know which five we will have to wait for.
The Prevent duty guidance supports several of the recommendations we have implemented, and we have introduced the new security threat check to ensure that decision-making is always informed by a proper consideration of the current threat picture. Updated training has been provided for public sector staff subject to the Prevent duty, and a further update on the implementation of the independent review of Prevent will be delivered one year after publication, in February 2024, when the majority of the recommendations will already have been implemented.
The noble Lord raised the subject of young people and what we are doing for them. One in 15 cases involves people under the age of 18, so protecting children from the risk of radicalisation sits alongside wider safeguarding duties, including tackling harms such as drugs, gangs and sexual exploitation. Prevent seeks to intervene early to support children and young people before they go too far down a road towards violence and criminality. It is not about punishment, making people suspects or placing them under surveillance, and it is not designed to impede a person’s prospects; it is designed to improve them. In line with previous statistics, we continue to see an upward trend in young people being referred to Prevent, demonstrating how vital the education sector is as part of the wider safeguarding duties to prevent young people being radicalised. The Government provide a range of support, including guidance, online training and a public-facing website to support schools in their responsibilities under the Prevent duty.
As the threat of radicalisation evolves, we have updated our training for front-line professionals to help equip them with the skills and knowledge to spot the signs of radicalisation and make a referral where appropriate. Prevent is implemented in a proportionate manner that considers the level of risk, and the Government take the threat from all forms of terrorism seriously. All referrals are assessed very carefully by experts to ensure that there is a radicalisation risk before they receive support through the Channel process, meaning that Channel provides support only to those who genuinely need it. Friends and family are often the first people to notice the changes in someone close to them that may be a sign of radicalisation, so more information is available on the police’s ACT Early website and the Educate Against Hate website. I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Lord’s questions.
The noble Lord also asked me about the fact that four out of nine incidents since 2018 have involved released prisoners. HMIC’s report recognises the significant steps taken by the sector to uplift our capabilities since the attacks of 2019-20. It shows that we have truly stepped up our counterterrorism efforts and that we are working more effectively than ever before to protect the public from terrorism, thanks to the joint work of prison, probation and police staff. The central intelligence hub co-ordinates quicker and better intelligence sharing, vastly improving our assessment of the threat from terrorists of all ideologies. Thanks to that, we can now share previously confidential and sensitive information with parole boards, so that they can make fully informed decisions about whether to release terrorist offenders from prison. On release, terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders are subject to robust risk management and stringent controls that severely limit their activity. Finally, we have also strengthened joint counterterrorism Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements—MAPPA—which assess, manage and mitigate the risk of offenders.
The noble Lord is right that Prevent is only one part of the broader counterterrorism strategy. The report set out a robust approach to tackling extremism and made a significant contribution to the Government’s thinking on counterextremism, including a manifesto commitment to protect practitioners who stand up to extremists. We have carefully considered the recommendations, as outlined in our letter to Dame Sara Khan, the previous commissioner for countering extremism, and they have made a significant contribution to the Government’s thinking on tackling extremism. We have clear laws, and the police have extensive powers to tackle hate crime and the support of terrorism. In addition, we have strengthened the Prevent duty guidance to tackle permissive spaces for radicalisation, which is with Parliament for approval. We have also strengthened our approach to identifying and disrupting high- harm groups that operate below legal thresholds that radicalise others. So, we have robust laws in place on terrorist organisations and we are doing more to tackle radicalisation.
On 18 July, the Home Secretary launched Contest 2023, which is a refresh of the UK’s counterterrorism strategy. Contest 2023 outlines how we are reflecting on and adapting to the findings and recommendations of inquests, inquiries and reviews into terrorist attacks and our counterterrorism approach, and will continue to do so. It also describes the transformational updates we will make to our CT efforts to ensure that we adapt to an ever-evolving landscape.
The noble Lord asked about the ministerial oversight board. We agreed with the IRP’s assertion that that there is a need for stronger oversight of Prevent, including greater co-ordination and communication between secondary oversight boards and committees, so we committed to reinvigorate the prime ministerial oversight board. The refreshed ministerial oversight board will be chaired by the Security Minister and will begin convening later this year. The board will be attended by Ministers from key cross-Whitehall departments and senior leads from operational partners. The purpose of the board is to provide scrutiny and oversight of all Prevent work, including implementation of the IRP’s recommendations. The board will convene for the first time later this year and be chaired by the Security Minister. It is meant to meet biannually but can be convened outside that rhythm if required.
I am getting towards the end, and I apologise for the length of my response. The noble Lord asked me what action is being taken to tackle those who use artificial intelligence. The Contest strategy, which was published this year, noted that new technologies present both threats and opportunities for counterterrorism efforts. The impact of generative AI on terrorists’ and extremists’ ability to radicalise others online is yet to be fully established. The Home Office is firmly committed to understanding this risk better and to ensuring that any policy development in this area is thoroughly informed by evidence. We obviously know that bad actors could exploit generative AI to radicalise susceptible individuals to carry out attacks, so the Home Office is continually monitoring these risks to ensure that our CT system is able to respond.
AI also brings huge opportunities to better enable our counterterrorism response to terrorism activity and online radicalisation, so we are taking steps to build our knowledge of risks and to consider appropriate mitigations. That will include bringing together partners from across industry, academia and civil society. The Government are hosting an AI summit next week. The rapidly evolving nature of AI means that broad consultation will continue to be essential so that it can be guaranteed to advance in a safe, responsible and fair way.
I think I have answered all noble Lords’ questions, and I hope I have been able to do so satisfactorily. As I have set out, the new guidance will enhance the Prevent system and bolster our ability to counter terrorism and keep the country safe. I commend the instrument to the committee.
Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations, which were laid before the House on 11 September, contain measures that are intended to continue to cut unnecessary red tape in order to support the hospitality sector in light of the ongoing residual effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.
As your Lordships may be aware, the Licensing Act 2003 enables licences to be granted to sell alcohol for consumption on site, for consumption off site, or for both. In the event that a business obtains an on-sales only licence and subsequently wishes also to do off-sales, it can apply to its licensing authority for a variation that would add off-sales to its licence.
The Business and Planning Act 2020 included a temporary provision that meant holders of licences that covered only on-sales would automatically be entitled to make off-sales, removing the need for businesses to apply for a variation, thus saving them time and money. In practice, this has enabled pubs and restaurants that have only an on-sales licence to sell alcohol for takeaway, to operate alcohol delivery services and to extend their service outdoors. Specifically, the measures have enabled businesses to serve alcohol in the area covered by any pavement licence they had, facilitated by a parallel but independent easement to pavement licensing. This parallel easement created a temporary streamlined process to apply for and have granted a pavement licence. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, currently completing its passage through Parliament, will make the changes to pavement licensing permanent.
The off-sales provision has benefited at least 38,000 licensed premises in England and Wales that previously did not have an off-sales licence, and, having previously been extended twice, it was due to expire on 30 September 2023. These new regulations extend this measure until 31 March 2025 to ensure that businesses will continue to benefit from these provisions for a further 18 months. During this time, the Government will explore the creation of a unified pavement licence that includes the consumption and sale of alcohol in the outside pavement area. Work is already under way to establish how this will work in practice. We intend to have permanent arrangements in place that can take effect when the extension expires.
I am confident that extending the off-sales provision is the right course of action in order to provide vital ongoing support to the hospitality sector. Although the immediate Covid-19 crisis has passed, the residual effects continue to have an immense impact, especially for businesses in the hospitality sector. Many continue to face high levels of Covid-related debt, with some reporting in July that their debt repayments exceeded 100% of their turnover.
For the purposes of clarity, I note that another regulatory easement set out in the BPA relating to temporary event notices—TENs—will not be extended. The provision temporarily increased the annual number of TENs that a licensed premises user can have in respect of a premises from 15 to 20 per year and increased the maximum number of days on which temporary events may be held at such premises from 21 to 26 per year. We have decided not to extend this easement for the simple reason that the additional TENs provided for in the BPA have been underutilised and are no longer deemed necessary. As such, on 31 December 2023 that easement will lapse.
These measures will continue to benefit a wide range of businesses, including pubs, restaurants, wedding venues and small festivals. The hospitality industry needs our support, so I commend these regulations to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing these regulations and I declare my interests as set out in the register. I rise briefly to add my support to my noble friend and this measure, and to thank the Government for the support given to the hospitality industry over the last few difficult years.
Personally, I am a supporter of these provisions becoming permanent, and I hope that will come, but in the meantime, I am happy that these regulations will bring 18 additional months of advantage to hard-working, tax-revenue-paying businesses. This extension enables businesses to continue to serve alcohol in the area covered by a pavement licence, for takeaway and for delivery, as my noble friend said, all without the need to apply for a variation to their licence. I am confident that this will continue to benefit thousands of licensed premises across England and Wales. I also applaud the Government’s commitment to explore the creation of a unified pavement licence that includes the consumption and sale of alcohol in the outside pavement area.
In the middle of one of the most joyless events known to mankind—“Sober October”—it is heartening to see some positive news for the hospitality industry. Clearly, the UK’s unelected temperance movement has decided that “Dry January” is no longer enough and wishes to spread even more misery. As far as I am aware, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that, when the regulations were first introduced and then extended, no increase in crime and disorder resulted. That shows that most people—the vast majority—can enjoy a modest drink without incident.
We know the hospitality sector has taken a huge hit in recent times; although recovering, there is still a way to go for the industry to get back on its pre-pandemic feet. The instrument, as extended today, has helped and will continue to help businesses diversify. Figures reveal that 383 pubs closed in the initial half of this year, to be demolished or converted, the equivalent of two every day. In the whole of 2022, 386 such venues ceased to exist. The overall number of pubs in England and Wales, including vacant ones, now stands at 39,404. The total number of closed clubs is currently not known but the social club sector has seen a number of closures, although not on the same scale.
The reasoning is clear. Let us continue to make things easier and give opportunities to businesses to survive and thrive—positives which we know trickle down to employed staff and to customers who still enjoy socialising. Let us also remind ourselves that, when the Licensing Act was passed in 2003 and introduced in 2005, it was hailed as a means to help create a café society, something which is more easily achieved with the ability to drink al fresco.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has introduced these regulations and welcome that temporary event notices will not be continued.
I will focus on the impact of easement, because different health and crime risks are associated with on-sales and off-sales. There is evidence from the Institute of Alcohol Studies that, while on-sales were not happening because of Covid, sadly, the incidence of alcohol-related violence did not drop. There is a link with off-sales. In licence hearings, responsible authorities and interested parties often present evidence of off-sales being a contributory factor in crime and anti-social behaviour.
There are four licensing objectives, which we need to remember: the prevention of crime and disorder; the protection of public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. There is a concern that making the regulatory easements permanent could undermine local statements of licensing policy. How will responsible authorities and other parties be able to make representations regarding the suitability of the extension and how will any data be collected?
One of the problems with alcohol availability is that it plays a key role in being the biggest risk factor for death, ill health and disability among 15 to 49 year-olds—young people with their lives ahead of them. The density of licensed premises is correlated with alcohol-related deaths, hospital admissions and neighbourhood deprivation. In Scotland, research found that neighbourhoods with the most alcohol outlets had crime rates over four times higher than those with the least. Public health and licensing have to be linked, and there is overwhelming support from directors of public health for them to be included in discussions of licensing. How will they be included, to allow local authorities to make decisions in the overall interest of their community, not only of the landlord of the pub?
How will all this be monitored before the next deadline date? The balance of sales of food and drink in pubs and other places of hospitality and the social interaction that is important for a community to have somewhere to go, meet and interact does not happen with off-sales to anything like the same extent. A lot of lone drinking, which is really harmful in society, is linked to off-sales.
I hope the Government will follow the advice that came from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee:
“The Government intend to use this 18-month extension to formulate and bring forward a long-term policy in the area. When doing so, we”—
that is, the committee—
“expect the Government to provide Parliament with a more robust evidence base, including addressing concerns put forward in the consultation”.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and support him in bringing forward these regulations. I share my noble friend Lord Smith’s ambition that we might eventually have a permanent pavement licence. I declare my interest at the outset as chairman of the original committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003, of which my noble friends Lord Smith and Lord Hayward were leading lights. I also had the privilege to chair the follow-up inquiry, which was instigated by the Deputy Speaker and the Liaison Committee. I also have the privilege of chairing PASS, the national proof of age standard scheme.
I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister. In its helpful briefing, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee indicates at paragraph 13 that the Government are probably underestimating the benefits to the economy, the hospitality sector and employment of the extension of pavement licensing, which promotes the possibility for businesses to know with certainty that they will be able to have that licence until the end of March 2025, as my noble friend said. Does he accept that the lack of reliable data points to the Government being very conservative and underestimating the potential for higher employment and increased outside socialising?
I hope the regulations will lead to the café culture that lay behind the original philosophy of the 2003 Act. However, conflicts could arise where residential developments are built adjacent to existing premises that have a well-developed business model with outside pavement licensing. Equally, there could be an application for a new business adjacent to a residential area.
In earlier proceedings on the levelling-up Bill, a number of us who served on the licensing review committee brought forward an amendment to introduce the agent of change principle. Might my noble friend open the door to considering developing that principle in his discussions in the department? It would go a long way to resolving some of these difficulties at the earliest possible stage.
With those few remarks, I wish my noble friend every success with these regulations.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I too support the regulations. Indeed, I hope they are put on a permanent basis, as my noble friend the Minister suggested. I agree with the suggestion that the review should take due account of the effect on people in the vicinity, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the public health issues she outlined.
I have given notice to the Minister of the point I am going to raise, because it is on the broader canvas of the effect of Covid and regulations post-pandemic, as we now see off the dreadful pandemic period. Many of us will recall that during the pandemic itself, we were able to deal with certain things in a very effective way, which gave rise to a warm glow of satisfaction. I am thinking particularly of rough sleeping, which disappeared in a way that many of us found both stunning and encouraging. Sadly, it is now of course creeping back. Have the Government given any thought as to how this can be reversed?
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I express similar support for the regulations and hope that when the final review is completed in March 2025, we move to a more permanent system of operation. I particularly welcome the support the Prime Minister gave to the extension while these issues were being considered.
I begin by pointing out that I was previously Chief Executive of the British Beer and Pub Association and sat on the other side of negotiations with the Government about the changes of the Licensing Act. I had many a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about not only licensing matters but security matters, which is relevant to the previous debate. I remember sitting discussing such matters with him when the bombing of late-night establishments was attempted.
I want to raise an issue that relates to temporary event notices, and which is not specifically covered by this legislation but arose earlier this summer in the context of the Lionesses’ success in the football World Cup. We should have considered this issue during consideration of the 2003 legislation. I, with others, led the application before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to change the interpretation of the law in 2002, when the men’s football World Cup was played in Japan and South Korea. He very sensibly said: “My original judgment was X. I now see that the circumstances have changed”, and the nation was allowed extended drinking hours for the period of the 2002 World Cup. Unfortunately, due to an oversight, the only way that temporary event notices can be extended is with the approval of Parliament. Of course, while the Lionesses were playing Parliament was not sitting, so there was no way that any temporary provision could officially be made. Fortunately, I think in most circumstances the police authorities and local councils were sensible in their application of the intended law.
Although it is outwith the purview of these regulations, when the Minister and his officials review the legislation in question, will they give consideration to circumstances which may arise when Parliament is not sitting, so that temporary event notices can easily be granted in some form or another, without the problems that arose this summer? Otherwise, I wholeheartedly support the regulations as they stand.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I also declare an interest—this seems to be the “old hands” thing—having been on the Front-Bench team which debated the original Bill in 2003. Since coming back to this issue, the concerns on both sides have not changed: alcohol, when misused, damages public health and leads to disorder and other things. But traditionally, it is our drug of choice—if you like to put it like that—and the one we use to relax in our society; it is the accepted norm. What is the best way of regulating it and making sure that it is used correctly? We also have a hospitability sector linked to it.
When I read the draft regulations, I was surprised to discover that we still have a coronavirus extension for the hospitability sector, although that makes sense when you run through what has gone on. The overall review of how this will be handled and organised in the future is the important thing—it is the elephant in the room, which is at least opaque at this point time; it is not exactly invisible. When I worked on the original legislation, I discovered that sports clubs did not have the same sort of licensing structure as pubs; they had to be dealt with separately and had been overlooked initially. I suppose that I should declare an incredibly minor interest as a non-playing member of my old rugby club.
If we are going to make this process more coherent, these regulations make some sense. But the points about off-sales and private drinking often leading to domestic violence and more health damage are also important. How will that balance be achieved in the review? That is very important. It is better to have outside control, such as when a barman or manager can literally say to somebody, “You have had too much to drink”. Surely it is preferable to have outside control and influence on somebody, rather than their sitting at home and quietly drinking themselves into oblivion and then occasionally interacting with anybody who tries to interfere with that. What is the Government’s thinking on that? Can they say a few words about that process, what is going on and their input into it? Every time we have discussed alcohol sales, those are the two things we have been trying to balance. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some idea.
To be honest, the outcome on this has a degree of cross-party support; it is not the most political of issues, but people will make ridiculous speeches, usually ranting about a problem after it has been dealt with. There is a constant balancing act. It would be helpful to the House as a whole if we could get some guidance on the Government’s thinking—and indeed that of the Labour Benches, because, let us face it, the reality means that this may well be their problem in about a year’s time.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I say at the outset that we are not opposed to the SI, but I have a few comments to make.
We cannot gloss over the fact—I will come back to why—that, according to paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the majority of people who responded to the public consultation opposed what the Government are seeking to do and said that we should return to the pre-Covid situation. I started by saying that we are not opposed to the Government’s proposals, but we have to address the fact that, while many of us have said that we support the extension of temporary licensing—although this is the third extension—65% of those who responded to the public consultation opposed it. The Government will probably say, as is usually said, that it was a very small sample and not properly reflective of public opinion; none the less, it is important for the Minister to address that.
The reason is that, frankly, the Government’s presentation of this was not as good as it might have been. Since we are in a conciliatory mood, let us say that it could have been better. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report is a shocking indictment of the way the Government introduced what is, by and large, an uncontroversial measure. Looking at the public consultation, the Government did not lay out in great detail the problems that were affecting the hospitality industry and why it was therefore necessary for them to continue with the temporary licensing.
I was astonished; I did not realise until I read it, but this was published only as a result of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee saying to the Government, “You haven’t said why you’re going to do this”, and the Government then sending it a letter saying, “By the way, industry survey data shows that the hospitality sector emerged from the pandemic with £10 billion of Covid-related debt”—as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, reminded us. You cannot just ignore that. It goes on to talk about the percentage of people affected, that one in seven hospitality businesses is still operating at a loss, and so on. Why was that not included in the original justification for the instrument?
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, the impact assessment did not mention the benefits—of employment, social interaction and so on. If you are trying to justify a piece of secondary legislation, why would you not talk about the reasons you are doing it—the adverse impact there would be if you did not do it and its benefits—when all this information is available in the Home Office? Clearly, the Government have to do something about this; it is just not good enough. Their legislation will be impacted, not because it is philosophically wrong but because they cannot get their act together to put out the decent facts to support their case, even though they exist.
I say gently to the Minister that perhaps this needs to be looked at. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that, if we are in government in a year’s time and I have any responsibility, in putting forward a piece of legislation I will do the novel thing of saying why it is a good idea and giving the facts to support that, including the benefits to the community from doing so.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I joke sometimes with other noble Lords, I am sure that if I do not do it, my comments will be read back to me.
This is important to numerous people’s livelihoods. I will spend a minute or two on that, because it is a serious matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, reminded us, this is about significant numbers of businesses generating significant amounts of money on which significant employment depends. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, reminded me of the work we did together. It is a really important industry, not to mention the social benefits that it brings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was quite right to highlight the concerns. That is why, by March 2025, there needs to be a proper unified licensing regime that identifies and deals with all this and looks at the problems that she mentioned. To start the debate, I do not think the problem is with off-sales from pubs and restaurants. Anti-social behaviour and the problem drinking associated with it usually come from off-sales from small corner shops and so on. In my experience, anti-social behaviour from young people comes from corner-shop sales. That is a sweeping generalisation—the vast majority of corner shops are well run—but the pricing and so on are issues. That is really important.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am pleased that this measure, which ensures continued support for the hospitality sector, has been generally recognised as a positive move. I reassure my noble friend Lord Smith that I have no intention of embracing sober October, and I will happily join him in that.
As I have already indicated, the long-term goal is to create a unified pavement licence that includes licensing consent for the consumption and sale of alcohol in an outside pavement area. This 18-month extension will provide the time necessary to establish how this will work in practice to bring about the necessary legislative changes.
I will try to respond to the specific questions, starting with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the consultation. Earlier this year, the Government consulted on whether to make permanent the alcohol licensing regulatory easements that were set out in the BPA 2020. A majority of respondents indicated that they did not wish the off-sales easement to continue and the Government initially decided not to continue with it. Of those who responded, broadly speaking, industry was in favour and local residents and licensing were not. However, I do not have the precise proportions. The Government later reviewed this decision and decided to provide additional support to the hospitality sector by extending this off-sale provision for a further 18 months. I recognise that this has caused confusion for stakeholders, but it will ensure that the hospitality sector can maximise every opportunity to recover fully from the ongoing residual effects of the pandemic on an industry that, as has been broadly noted, is vital to our economy and culture. I will come back to the evidence of the economic impact shortly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about the broader health evidence that we need to seek. She made some very interesting and sound points about health, but we believe that the existing provisions to consider health matters in relation to licensing applications are sufficient at present. Difficulties remain in establishing direct links, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, alluded, between alcohol-related harms and specific premises. Evidence from Scotland so far is not particularly compelling, but we will consider any new evidence. As a general rule, directors of public health are responsible authorities under the Licensing Act.
I go back to the confusion that may have been caused between the publication of the consultation results and the decision to extend the provisions. We apologise for that confusion—I completely accept that it was not ideal. However, it is right that we considered all the relevant factors in detail, and we are confident that extending this easement for an additional 18 months represents the best outcome for the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked what the point of consulting is if we just ignore the results; I think there is a legitimate expectation that government will consult on matters of policy or legislative change to allow interested parties and citizens the opportunity to contribute their views. They are a vital part of how government engages with the public and stakeholders, and we have to acknowledge the role they play in decision-making. However, they are only one factor among many that must be considered and it is important that the Government retain the ability to make different decisions where other concerns need to be taken into account. The Government have the luxury of seeing the bigger picture, which local residents who object perhaps do not.
My noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made some very good points about the importance of the hospitality sector to the country and the difficulties it is facing. It continues to feel the effects of the coronavirus pandemic; there are no remaining restrictions in place, but many businesses continue to face significant debt burdens, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, as a result of the pandemic. Industry survey data shows that the hospitality sector emerged from the pandemic with, as has been noted, £10 billion of Covid-related debt. ONS data shows that 6.6% of hospitality firms reported that their debt repayments exceeded 100% of their turnover in July 2023, which is above the economy-wide average of 1.9% and up from 5.1% in May 2023.
Operating costs reached record levels in 2021 at 55.2%, compared with 52.5% pre pandemic. Industry data suggests that, while turnover was up 6.7% in the last year to £137 billion, when compared to 2019 it remains almost 20% behind in real terms when accounting for inflation. Following the withdrawal of Covid-related government support in autumn 2021, the number of hospitality business insolvencies has steadily risen, as my noble friend Lord Smith noted. According to Insolvency Service data, hospitality insolvencies in the six months to July 2023 were 58% higher than the 2019 average, as cost pressures place significant demand on profit margins. I think that makes a clear economic case for the reasons and rationale behind doing this now.
A number of noble Lords asked about our long-term plans and ultimate goal, which is to create a unified pavement licence that includes licensing consent for the consumption and sale of alcohol in the outside pavement area. The Home Office is working on a permanent solution in conjunction with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is responsible for pavement licensing. While related to these regulations, this is ultimately a separate issue that will be worked through over the coming months. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I cannot discuss that work in any detail at the moment, but I very much noted what my noble friend Lord Hayward said about the experience of the Lionesses and will make sure that that is passed back, in particular what he was saying about how common sense prevailed.
My noble friend also mentioned licensing extensions in relation to that situation. As he noted, extensions of licensing hours support communities who wish to come together to celebrate events, particularly those of national importance, by enabling hospitality venues to open for longer. We are looking at how best to streamline that process for such extensions and will continue to do so.
I understand that any relaxation of licensing law naturally results in concerns about potential crime and disorder, but I can provide your Lordships with considerable reassurance on this point. We have consulted the National Police Chiefs’ Council about the effects that the temporary off-sales permission has had. The view of the police is that the temporary off-sales permission has not caused any clearly identifiable increase in crime and disorder.
On concerns raised about premises whose irresponsible approach to off-sales leads to anti-social behaviour, I refer the Committee to Section 76 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which provides councils and policing with powers to issue a closure notice if there are reasonable grounds that
“use of a particular premises has resulted, or … is likely … to result, in nuisance to members of the public, or that there has been, or … is likely soon to be, disorder near those premises associated with the use of the premises, and that the notice is necessary to prevent the nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring”.
I hope that answers the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about crime and the powers that are already available to have an effect on the grant of these types of licence.
Concerns were also voiced about the off-sales permission leading to excessive noise late at night. The temporary off-sales permission is limited to the hours of on-sales permitted by the licence, with the cut-off at 11 pm. That applies to all premises that receive the permission. Furthermore, should issues of noise and nuisance arise from off-sales of alcohol, environmental health officials can seek an expedited off-sales review. Within 48 hours of an application for such a review being made, the licensing authority must consider whether interim steps are necessary to prevent further problems. Those interim steps may modify the licence conditions, suspend the off-sales permission or exclude the off-sales permission altogether. A review hearing within 28 days has the same option. So there are plenty of safeguards that are sufficient to ensure that problems of noise and nuisance are quickly tackled.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me about broader work to tackle alcohol-related harms. Preventing alcohol-related harms requires a sustained commitment from across government, but also from local authorities, the police, health partners—to which I have already referred—and, of course, businesses. There really is no easy answer to tackling alcohol-related harms. Every part of the system, from early intervention to brief advice, treatment and access to criminal justice powers, has to work together. We have an ambitious programme of work in train across departments to tackle these harms and I am sure that we will respond to them in due course.
My noble friend Lord Bourne raised some very good points in his question about the lessons learned more broadly from Covid. I am not in a position to guarantee him the debate that he seeks, although I think it is a very good idea, but I point to the way things are changing at pace. I happened to read an interesting article in the Times this morning, which talked about working from home and how, apparently, a majority are now working back in their offices— I believe that that was from Hays, the employment agency. That should be good news for the sort of hospitality services that we are talking about, but I accept and respect the point he made about the fact that society changed in many ways that we ought to spend more time considering, particularly regarding the overall volunteering principle and the civic responsibilities that so many people embraced. Those were good points and we should return to them.
I have spoken enough and answered as many questions as I can. I cannot make any commitment on the agent of change principle, which my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about, but it is a broad-ranging consultation and work is being done across government on it. I have no doubt at all that it will be considered.
As I said, the hospitality industry is at the heart of many of our communities. It is vital to our economy, as evidenced by the numbers I read, provides employment and boosts tourism. We have to do all we can to ensure it recovers from the effects of the pandemic. The modest extension will allow businesses to continue to benefit from these measures while steps are taken to put in place a long-term solution. I hope that will meet the needs of all interested parties. Therefore, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dormant Assets (Distribution of Money) (England) Order 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the Grand Committee do consider the Dormant Assets (Distribution of Money) (England) Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to move this order, which was laid before the House in draft on 11 September. The order names community wealth funds as a cause to receive dormant assets money, in addition to the existing three causes in the dormant assets scheme: youth, financial inclusion and social investment wholesalers.
To explain why the order is being made and a new cause is being included in the scheme, it may be helpful if I outline the background. Led by the financial services industry and backed by the Government, the dormant assets scheme is a brilliant example of what can be achieved when the public and private sectors come together to address some of the biggest challenges facing people in this country. The scheme’s priority is always to ensure that customers are protected and able to reclaim what they are owed. Where the asset owner cannot be found, the scheme has allowed hundreds of millions of pounds that have been lying idle to be used to support important social and environmental causes across the UK.
Since it began over a decade ago, the scheme has unlocked almost £1 billion to be spent across the United Kingdom. In England, this has sought to address the barriers that young people from deprived and disadvantaged backgrounds face when trying to gain employment. I am pleased to say that over 22,000 young people across the country have been supported to find meaningful work, thanks to the scheme. It has also supported 150,000 people with no-interest loans totalling over £150 million. This has kept honest and hard-working people out of the clutches of dangerous and manipulative loan sharks and saved them over £50 million in interest payments, ensuring that those who are financially excluded are given a hand up to get back on track.
The scheme has also helped to scale up the social investment market by more than tenfold, giving 5,000 organisations such as charities and social enterprises the investment needed to ensure they can continue to serve the communities and people who need it most. Soon dormant assets funding will also be about supporting communities across the country, placing decision-making into the hands of local residents to enable them to invest in what matters most to them and in a way that works best for their community.
Last year, I had the pleasure of leading what is now the Dormant Assets Act through your Lordships’ House in its final stages. It is thanks to the passage of this legislation that the Government were able to give people and participants in the scheme a voice in deciding how we should use dormant assets funding in England. Last year’s public consultation made it clear that the scheme enjoys widespread support from the public, and it is wonderful to see how this unique policy is bringing people and organisations together.
This order makes good on the Government’s commitment that the scheme will support the four causes that people told us matter most to them. By supporting youth, financial inclusion and education, social investment wholesalers and community wealth funds, we can ensure that the scheme is capable of delivering meaningful change for the next decade and beyond, providing support for those who need it most across the country. I commend the order to the Grand Committee and beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this instrument, which is subject to affirmative approval. I declare an interest as a member of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
I welcome the use of dormant funds, particularly being ploughed back into local communities for the benefit of those communities. When I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive several years ago, we set up an arrangement for dormant funds there. It took about 12 years to be realised for investment in local communities, but there is no doubt that they provide that added resource when other resources may not be available to underpin community initiatives.
Thanks to the pioneering investment of dormant assets over the last decade and the work of organisations such as Big Society Capital, Access—the Foundation for Social Investment—and many others, social investment in the UK has grown more than tenfold in 10 years, with £9.4 billion invested into charities and social enterprises. This includes £1.8 billion committed to social enterprises and charities in 2022 alone, which has gone into over 1,310 projects delivering measurable social impact such as affordable homes, community food banks and tech start-ups tackling mental health.
There is no doubt, and we have all seen examples, that social investment has had a transformative effect on communities most in need. Around 43% of social investment deals have gone to levelling up priority 1 areas. Perhaps that is one area where levelling up has worked. But the next wave of dormant assets—I think the Minister was referring to that in talking about the initial legislation and this subsequent legislation on community wealth funds—will build on these foundations and take social investment further. A group of leading social enterprise, voluntary sector and social investment organisations have mapped out a plan for how best to do it. Known as the community enterprise growth plan, it proposes using dormant assets to deliver three proven interventions. Only yesterday, I talked to one of those organisations, and they have exciting initiatives for local communities through the investment of this resource.
There is no doubt that this plan has a number of benefits. It is a proposal to create jobs, boost growth and address regional inequalities, targeting communities affected by long-term economic decline. The plan uses existing systems, which would allow capital to begin flowing quickly and deliver results. Crucially, through social investment, the money invested is repaid and recycled, enabling funds to be used again and again to grow future support.
I am well aware that the Minister brought the initial legislation through your Lordships’ House, but I would like to be assured, as I am sure other noble Lords present would, that the dormant assets fund can continue into perpetuity for whatever that perpetuity means, because it brings much-needed benefits alongside government and other community resources. I would like to see it continue and to receive assurances to that effect.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing this proposal forward. As my noble friend pointed out, we discussed it in the final knockings of the Dormant Assets Bill on 9 February 2022, nearly two years ago. I thank my noble friend for adding community wealth funds to the list of bodies which can receive distributions from the dormant assets fund.
I will add a quick word on why I think community wealth funds are so important. Some noble Lords may recall that about 10 years ago I was asked by the Government to undertake an official review of the Charities Act 2006. That Act was the biggest change in charity law since the Elizabethan statute of 1601, so 400 years of history were wrapped up in a new Bill. There was concern on all sides of the House and in the sector as to how matters would work out, so we needed a review to see how the new system was settling down.
Assisted by a terrific team from the Cabinet Office, we undertook visits around the country, which were interesting in two senses. First, you saw just how much could be done by really small groups of men and women dedicated to their community and the area where they lived; they were small, passionate, hard-working and deserving of support. Secondly, you saw the very different levels of social capital around the country. After we had a session in the south-east of England, we had to have a second, because so many people wanted to come to the first, but we could not fit them all in—but it was not quite the same in Newcastle, where there were much smaller numbers. It seemed to me then that community wealth funds could hit both those targets: they could help to level up social capital in different parts and they could reach in and get to those small groups of men and women who are doing interesting things in tune with their communities.
Those two factors bring their challenges. The first is the distance between the distributor of the funds and the recipient. I shall use an aeronautical analogy: the distributors of the funds are flying at 30,000 feet, while the people I am talking about are hedge-hopping at 100 feet, because they have to be right down at the grass roots. So Big Society Capital is brilliant—I have not a word of criticism about it—but its handouts are in the tens of millions and its access grants are in the tens of thousands. We will have to find a way to make sure that there are plenty of intermediate layers so that what leaves the big groups at the top trickles all the way down and reaches the really small organisations in this new regime—because, with community wealth funds, they will be really small organisations. We must also find new little acorns, which may grow well, and not fall back, as is too often the case, on the usual suspects. That will be the challenge for the structure going forward for this important decision.
There are some challenges for the sector, which are worthwhile putting on the record today. There is now a pot of money—as David Jason used to say in “Only Fools and Horses”, “lovely jubbly”—but there will be some hard decisions to be made on what to support and what not to support and, even more painfully and hard, when to stop supporting something because it is not providing the answer to the question or demand for which it was set up. That, in turn, will mean a second challenge to the sector. The weather in the charity sector is too often made not by the thousands of men and women doing their stuff and being successful but by the outliers—the crass, the illegal and the stupid who end up on the front page of the newspapers and therefore begin to bring the sector into less good odour. Therefore, on behalf of those Members of your Lordships’ House, most of whom are not here today but who spoke in favour of this from across all parties, I say: we are looking to the sector not to let us down. There was a degree of cynicism at times about whether these small organisations would be able to deliver, and I hope that they will prove those of us who went in to bat for them that our confidence was well placed.
That takes me to the next important point. Because you are small, it does not mean that you do not need to have your impact measured. Every charity has a public benefit objective, and the Charity Commission is supposed to ensure that you are meeting that and that you have a proper impact. It will be very important, with these small bodies, that we do not forget that, because the dormant assets fund and all the other providers of funding are entitled to have a level of confidence about what is going on. I hope that the Oversight Trust may have a role here. It is chaired by Sir Stuart Etherington, who was for many years chairman of the NCVO. I hate to say it like this, because Stuart Etherington is a good fellow, but he is—I say this as a compliment—a wily old fox, so he will be able to find out what is going on. I hope that he and his board will be able to dig into these sorts of things to make sure that we can have all confidence in what going on in this new sector.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I have been following the issue of dormant assets principally in relation to the 2022 Act. My concern has always been to emphasise that this is not free money; it is somebody’s money and out there there are people—some may no longer be around—and the primary objective of restoring the money should always be in our minds. That is why I have followed closely the progress of the Act and these regulations.
I have a few questions for the Minister. First, one of the main points of the Act was to include orphan pension assets. Does this order arise because of those additional assets, or is something still coming down the road? It would be useful to have some indication of the relationship between them. I make it clear that I do not oppose the order; my concern relates to the issue of additionality. What we always want is for this money to be doing things which would not otherwise be done, but which could—and should—be done by public authorities. By way of definition, the Explanatory Memorandum says that a community wealth fund
“will give local people the power to make decisions about how to improve their neighbourhood and community”.
That is where the issue of additionality becomes difficult to assess. Are these things which the local authority, central government or other bodies should be doing in any event? Can the Minister give us some assurances on the issue of additionality?
On the question of restoring the money to the individuals who really own it, during the passage of the Act there was some discussion of the pensions dashboard. It has got bogged down and is taking much longer to appear than anticipated, but it illustrates the complexity and difficulties as to what priority the Government are prepared to give to the restoration of assets to their real owners, rather than to the orphan assets fund. Is this issue being discussed, either generally or in the context of this order?
Finally, what responsibility do the Government have? What supervision do they employ over how this money is being used? Do they just hand it over, wave it goodbye and feel they no longer have any further responsibility; or do they accept responsibility, despite the advisory bodies and the contracts they have with the bodies that distribute the money? What responsibility do the Government accept for overseeing this money? I always make that point in this context. My experience, having been responsible for distributing grants along these lines, is that it is all too easy to give capital grants but to pay insufficient attention to the revenue consequences of doing so. Do the Government recognise this issue? What responsibility do they have to ensure that we do not encounter problems?
Finally, on the issue of the reserve ratio, which was raised, during the passage of the Act I had some correspondence with the grant-giving body and I was not entirely clear about the basis on which the ratio was decided. Further explanation could be given and further time devoted by the Minister in his crowded schedule to assessing the reserve ratio, to see that it is set at a proper level.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I intervene with some trepidation on this subject because, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who have clearly lived with this subject for some time, my interest has essentially been dormant. Then I got an email from Big Society Capital, which I am sure we all got, which drew my attention to the SI. In one of the quieter moments during consideration of the levelling up Bill yesterday, I picked up the SI and followed some of the links.
I have no difficulty with the policy at all—it is a very successful policy—but a number of questions arose in my mind. The first was about the public consultation, referred to in Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which in turn led to the SI before us confirming the original three objectives but adding an extra one. I read the consultation document, which was structured in such a way that it inevitably led to the conclusion we have arrived at. The first question it asked was whether it was right to continue to support the three objectives we are now supporting. Then there was a long list of some very successful projects, which no one could disagree with at all. After that was another section on what would happen if support was cut off—and then, obviously, there would be a lot of disappointment. At the end of that, when one’s mind was already predisposed towards supporting the three existing ones, was another question, asking whether wealth management should be added; and then it set out all the benefits of including wealth management. Right at the end, the document asked about other objectives. The consultation showed that there was no consensus at all about any other objectives, so it concluded that they should carry on with these three and add the extra one.
The question raised in my mind was that the original three objectives were set out in 2008, 15 years ago. Are they really the same objectives that we should be applying today? Instead of the review starting off with a preconceived notion of carrying on from where we are, should it not have started with a totally blank piece of paper? A whole lot of issues have arisen that simply were not around in 2008, such as childhood obesity and non-attendance at schools, social harms from the media and increased awareness of the environment. I was slightly worried when my noble friend said, in introducing this measure, that the objectives would go on for the next decade and beyond. I hope that there will be another review, and perhaps he will say that the next one will be slightly more open-ended than the one that has just concluded, to take account of the fact that we now live in a different world and the priorities of objectives may well have changed.
That was the first thing that struck me. The second thing was what my noble friend said about the reserve ratio. Some 40% of the money in the reclaim fund is retained. That may have been right at the beginning, when no one knew exactly what was going to happen, but all the banks and financial institutions that have signed up to this scheme voluntarily follow a protocol to identify who owns the assets—and it is quite a rigorous protocol. After 15 years, if no one has claimed it, the money goes to the reclaim fund, which then retains 40%. I was reading the Government’s response to the consultation document, which came out in May. It says that
“only a small percentage do so”—
in other words, claim the money from the reclaim fund. It went on to say that there were
“consistently low levels of reclaims following transfer”.
If so, why on earth are they sitting on 40% of the money, given that it is hundreds of millions of pounds that could go through to worthwhile causes.
This proposition may be too much for my noble friend but, if you lose the deeds of your house or your share certificates, you can take out an insurance policy, which is actually quite cost effective, to insure yourself against somebody else suddenly popping up with the deeds of the House or the share certificates that were yours. Have the Government considered insuring themselves—or the reclaim fund insuring itself—against these claims? How many Rip Van Winkles are there are out there waiting to claim their money after 15 years? If they could insure themselves against that small minority of claims, all the money could be released.
Related to that second point, the document says that a portion of the money is invested. Are the Government happy to see hundreds of millions of pounds held in gilt-edged securities to help them with their borrowing requirement, rather than having that money paid out to voluntary organisations? My noble friend may not want to go down that path, but what is done with that money, the hundreds of millions of pounds that it says is invested? What is it invested in?
I have two final points. I think the scheme was recently extended to include pension funds. Has that money started flowing in? This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Are there plans to extend access to the scheme to any more institutions, which would obviously require primary legislation?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when I looked at this, I thought I had one or two clever questions, but they have both been asked. It is one of those SIs which is basically a good idea but there are a series of “Yes, but what if it happens?” questions. The final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, that if you insure against this then maybe you could get the money out there and would be covered anyway might be an answer. I certainly had not thought of it, but it deals with the problem of getting the money, which is designed for a good cause and which you are holding, out there and letting it do the work.
I appreciate that we should hear about how everyone who is paid from this is using the money, benefiting from it and reporting back. Can the Minister say something about that? I declare a small interest as a trustee of the Atlas Foundation, which does this on a very small scale from privately arranged funds. Reporting back is very important to what we do because we have to know what has happened, usually in youth projects based around rugby football abroad. We have reports back so that we can see what is going on. The Government should let us know how this is happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, made a point about additionality and the National Lottery. I wonder how many times that has been breached and whether it has now become the National Lottery’s normal activity to cover certain activities. It has been a great success and done positive things, but has it let the Government off the hook? I do not know. If we want a pointless activity, let us go through that and put the balancing scales up. My attitude is that we do not need to, as long as it gets done and we do not try to overload it.
How it is administered seems to be the major cause of concern. I do not know whether we are holding too much money back—whether for 15 or 20 years—and then giving the whole thing away. Are the Government or the Opposition thinking about whether they will challenge this in future? What is the Government’s long-term thinking on this? Helping good causes, most of which do well, and making sure you find out which ones do not is basically a win-win. It has been a successful scheme, so what are the Government doing to make sure that this momentum is maintained and that we continue to have good results? That is the only thing that could cause any controversy. It is a question of how they are monitoring it and making sure that it is doing this properly. There is also the principle of additionality. Is it doing something that other bits of legislation say are government activity, either local or national? With those caveats, which sound rather miserable as I look back at them, this should probably be supported.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, like everybody else, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he introduced this. It is a short SI. That has not stopped noble Lords this afternoon asking a plenitude of questions, but all of them are highly relevant. Many of them are repeats from when we discussed the Bill back in 2021-22, but they are nevertheless highly relevant today.
This is of huge importance to community organisations and individuals who will benefit from the funding. I thought that the testimony of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, was very good on that point because she gave very good examples of the benefits of using the funds in the way in which they are used. I am sure that the Minister will fondly remember his many hours taking the Bill through the House; I have a feeling that it was his first Committee, and he did it very well and with tact and skill.
During the passage of the Bill, we had a lot of discussion about the potential inclusion of community wealth funds as beneficiaries of the dormant asset moneys. In the best tradition of the Lords, there was cross-party support, including in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, the now-retired Bishop of Newcastle, and, speaking on her behalf, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely. That collaboration gave rise, as I recall, to an amendment that many of us signed, which led to a shift in the position of the Government. It was initially resisted by the Minister, who stressed that
“current evidence for community wealth funds, as well as concrete designs for how they would operate, are relatively sparse”.
He did, however, go on to say that
“there is more work to be done in this area before a commitment can firmly be made”. [Official Report, 16/11/21; col. 177.]
In a refreshing break from tradition, the Government have followed through with their promise. I congratulate them on that, because it is a very important and significant one.
Based on the outcomes of their consultation, which saw 71% of respondents agree or strongly agree that community wealth funds should be included as a cause for dormant assets, they have rightly included them on the list in this instrument. This is, without doubt, a very exciting time for those involved in the creation and scaling up of community wealth funds. However, the Minister will know that some in the sector are concerned by the direction indicated in the recent technical consultation document published jointly by DCMS and DLUHC. We understand the need to build the evidence base for community wealth funds. Limiting their work to smaller towns of fewer than 20,000 people appears counterintuitive to us—I will not say counterproductive. Some of the most deprived areas across our country have populations larger than 20,000, yet for a variety of reasons they lack the type of social infrastructure that these funds could provide. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, gave a very good case example of where that sort of community capacity can be missing.
Yes, we need to build the evidence base for community wealth funds over time, but I hope the department will consider whether this rather arbitrary threshold is wise. If the pilots are run in the wrong areas or to the wrong criteria, we may never see an accurate picture of the role these funds can play in improving communities and people’s lives and livelihoods. Will the department reflect further on this? This design principle is not even subject to consultation, and I think that needs to be given some urgent thought. At the least, we would like to see the Minister prepared to welcome views on the point and the issue.
While we are glad that community wealth funds have been named as a cause, we are equally pleased to see the existing three causes keep their place in the list. Dormant assets have funded a variety of important services for young people and those with debt or financial inclusion issues, which the Minister referenced. It is vital that their work is able to continue, particularly at a time where our economy continues to struggle and inflation remains a problem for people up and down the country. The Minister will be familiar with the work of organisations such as Big Society Capital, Local Trust and so on, that fall under the third category on the list. As I am sure the Minister is well aware, Big Society Capital has come up with a community enterprise growth plan, which aims to put dormant asset funds to even better use by leveraging additional private capital and multiply the impact that the initial investment generates. While I understand that the Minister will not be able to announce individual allocations today, will he commit to looking closely at least at that plan?
Some questions will remain over elements of the Government’s approach, but we are generally pleased to support this SI. As I have already noted, there is cross-party support for the scheme, and we should harness that energy. At the same time, there are legitimate concerns over particular aspects of the policy. Ministers like to talk about levelling up but, despite the fantastic work of social enterprises across the country, it is not clear that we are yet seeing it on the ground. With that in mind, I hope the Minster can commit to further discussions in the months to come.
For me, the dormant assets scheme is an original great Labour success story. It started in 2008 and was authored by Gordon Brown. The current Government have taken it a stage further and broadened the range of options for paying into that fund. It has put millions of pounds to good use around the country. We are happy to support the expansion of the asset categories through the 2022 Act. Once the finer details have been ironed out, we hope that even more will soon go to good causes.
A number of questions that colleagues asked were particularly important, such as on additionality. Ensuring the restoration of money to the right place is important. The size of the reserve fund seems questionable. We must ensure that we get the right distribution of funds and that they deliver additionality, rather than just paying for things that would otherwise be paid for by government programmes through local government.
This has been an impressive and useful debate. I hope this is an issue that we can keep at the forefront of the House’s consideration. Perhaps we could return to the point about monitoring and analysing the impact at some stage in some form or other. It might be the sort of thing that could be the subject of a Lords’ report, because this is an exciting opportunity. It is all about building capacity, providing opportunities and getting funds to communities that most require them.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, that this has been an important and useful debate. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and her fellow members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for the work they have done in this regard. I reassure her that we do indeed want this scheme to continue long into the future. The expansion of the dormant assets scheme is expected to unlock a further £738 million for England alongside the almost £1 billion which has already been unlocked, as I mentioned in my opening contribution. We are committed to ensuring the success of this expansion so that ample funding can be distributed across the four causes. That is what the primary legislation—the 2022 Act—and the secondary legislation intend to promote and protect.
I can also reassure the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Addington, and other noble Lords who underlined the importance of the additionality principle that it will be adhered to. Ensuring additionality is an essential criterion of the dormant assets scheme. The Government are committed to ensuring that a community wealth fund is designed and delivered in a way which does not replace or undercut central or local government funding. We specifically sought views on how to embed the principle of additionality in the design of a community wealth fund in the technical consultation, which closed on 19 October and which we are working our way through at the moment. That will include ensuring that any interventions provided to communities to support their decision-making will exclude statutory duties. We will work with the National Lottery Community Fund as the main distributor. Lottery funds are also subject to the additionality principle, so the National Lottery Community Fund already has its own policies and practices in place to maintain that important principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about the pensions dashboard. Ensuring that efforts are made to reunite dormant assets funding with its rightful owner remains the first priority of the scheme. A number of ongoing initiatives are aimed at preventing pension assets reaching dormancy, including pensions dashboards, which will enable people to access their information online, securely and all in one place.
Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling and Secrecy) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move these regulations, which were laid before the House on 11 September. In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring the ongoing integrity of our democratic process by stopping postal vote harvesting, and we are delivering on that commitment. Last year, Parliament passed the Elections Act 2022, and I am delighted to be able to bring forward a statutory instrument flowing from that Act.
The instrument implements three measures in the Elections Act relating to UK parliamentary elections and other types of polls concerning the handling of postal votes and the secrecy of absent voting. These changes intend to tackle the practice of collecting the votes of large numbers of postal voters and support electors to be able to cast their vote confidentially and securely outside of the polling station.
The first element introduces a ban on political campaigners handling postal voting documents issued to another person. The second measure sets out that an individual, in addition to their own postal vote, will be able to hand in the postal votes of up to five other electors at a polling station or to the returning officer at, for example, a council office. Thirdly, existing secrecy provisions in force for those voting in person in a polling station are being extended to postal and proxy voters. These measures implement recommendations in the report into electoral fraud published in 2026 by my noble friend Lord Pickles entitled Securing the Ballot. They are designed to improve the security of absent voting and make it less vulnerable to potential fraud.
I will set out the measures in more detail. Currently, there are no restrictions on who may hand in postal votes or how many may be handed in by any single person, and there is no record of who has handed in postal votes. We do not consider this acceptable because it creates opportunities for unscrupulous individuals to undermine the integrity of postal voting. For example, there is a concern that voters could be coerced into completing their postal voting statement before handing the ballot paper unmarked to be taken away and filled in elsewhere by someone else, or that completed ballots could be tampered with out of sight of the voter and the returning officer. Tackling the collection of votes in this way is a manifesto commitment that we are keen to deliver on.
Furthermore, even if acting legitimately, people seen to be handing in significant numbers of postal votes creates the perception and suspicion of impropriety, which can be damaging to public confidence in the electoral system. We are intent on striking the right balance between being mindful of security and keeping the electoral process accessible. Under these regulations, a person, in addition to their own postal vote, will be able to hand in the postal votes of up to five other electors at a polling station or to the returning officer—for example, at a council office. I highlight that the setting of this limit has been informed by the helpful input from your Lordships during the debates on the Elections Act, in particular the input from the noble lord, Lord Scriven.
A person handing in postal votes will be required to complete a form setting out certain information, including their name and address, the number of persons whose postal votes they are handing in, and the reason for this. Postal votes in excess of the limit or not handed in in accordance with these requirements will be rejected.
These regulations will also update all relevant prescribed forms to make sure the new limits are set out clearly to electors. This information should help electors to plan accordingly and return their postal votes via post where possible, although if they are handed in, they will know the permitted number that may be handed in.
After the poll, the returning officer will put together lists of rejected postal ballot papers, and the electoral registration officer, where possible, will subsequently write to the persons whose postal votes have been rejected under the postal vote handing in requirements to notify them that their vote was rejected and the reason, or reasons, why. This will ensure that postal voters are informed of the rejection of their postal vote and can, if necessary, act to avoid this at future polls.
The concerns about postal vote harvesting I have set out are magnified when being carried out by a political campaigner. The Act, supported by these regulations, therefore sets out a stricter approach for such individuals. It introduces a ban on political campaigners handling postal voting documents that are issued to another person, unless the political campaigner is a family member or designated carer of that other person. The ban is supported by a new offence. These regulations apply an equivalent new ban and related offence to election types not directly covered by the Act: for example, police and crime commissioner elections.
Currently, requirements protecting the secrecy of a person’s vote are in place for people voting at a polling station, but it is essential that electors opting for an absent vote are also protected by the same secrecy provisions. The secrecy of the ballot is fundamental to the ability of voters to cast their vote freely, without pressure to vote a certain way, and this should apply regardless of whether they are in a polling station or marking their ballot at home. Therefore, it will be an offence for a person to seek information about who a postal voter is voting for at the time they are completing their ballot paper, or to communicate any such information obtained at that time. The offence does not apply to opinion polling activity asking how a postal voter has voted or intends to vote, to avoid criminalisation of legitimate opinion pollsters.
As well as protecting postal voters, the measure also provides that a person voting as proxy for another elector at an election must not communicate at any time to any person, except to the elector for whom they are voting as proxy, any information as to the candidate for whom that person is about to vote or has voted as proxy. As with the political campaigner handling ban, the Act makes these secrecy changes in respect of some elections, and the regulations make equivalent changes to other types of elections.
These measures are sensible safeguards against the potential abuse of absent voting and will reduce the opportunity for individuals to exploit the process and steal the votes of other voters. I hope that, following my setting out of the details of the statutory instrument, the Committee will appreciate its careful and considered design for supporting absent voters. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I put on record my welcoming of the regulations and, as I indicated during the passage of the Act, my support for the broad range of the proposals in relation to controlling postal votes and the fraud which has gone on. I say that without any shadow of a doubt, as on one occasion I went to Tower Hamlets to campaign in a by-election and, as I got out of the Tube, I was confronted by people exchanging voting forms in front of me. I hesitate to imply that Tower Hamlets has been the cause of much of this legislation, but it seems to have been on occasion. However, to ensure that it is not the sole location identified, Richard Mawrey, who sat in judgment on the Birmingham case several years ago, said that the events in Birmingham in relation to voting fraud gave banana republics a bad name. He was essentially taking a view primarily in relation to postal votes, but also to other elements of fraud.
I will make a quick comment in relation to my noble friend’s opening comments. I think that he referred to 2026. It would be rather perceptive of us to be discussing something that arose from a report published in 2026. I think that he meant—and that everybody in the Moses Room knows he meant—2016.
I return to a point that I made in discussions on the last statutory instrument that we discussed. Yet again we have proof of the serious need for the consolidation of elections law. We are passing a series of regulations in relation to one election, but we have to have another set of papers in relation to another election and another election. The Elections Act 2022 is a mere 176 pages long. The regulations that we have in front of us today, which are only one of a series of sets of statutory instruments that we are facing, are 194 pages long. Last week, we considered two SIs, one of which was 34 pages long and another of which was 50 pages long. The vast majority of cases from which this arises is because we are covering different elections under different pieces of legislation, of which there has been no consolidation. We would not need this vast proliferation of paperwork if we had a consolidated piece of legislation.
Having said that, I will say that I think statutory instruments have grown. I did some research with the Library in relation to the amount of pages of statutory instrument documentation required on voter ID when it was introduced in Northern Ireland and the comparison with when it was introduced in England. Unfortunately, I have not finished that research, but I have a strong suspicion that, rather like Topsy, these things are just growing.
I will make just two other points. I welcome this legislation because, when I proceeded with the Ballot Secrecy Act, large numbers of people said to me that I was tackling the question of intimidation, overseeing other people’s voting in a polling booth, but asked what I was going to do in relation to postal votes—and I said that that had already been dealt with. The two pieces of legislation go hand in hand, and they are beneficial to achieving free and fair elections.
In conclusion, I remind my noble friend that, when I spoke last time on the statutory instrument, I made a request for a meeting to discuss the correspondence that I have had with the department—and I sought an indication of the date on which counsel’s opinion had been transferred from the Electoral Commission to the officials. As yet, I have not even received information in relation to the date of transfer which, after all is said and done, is merely a question of looking at the top of an email.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I wish to add my support to the comments that he made about the consolidation of election law. We are way behind the curve—the Minister is nodding—and we really need to look at the consolidation of electoral law.
I turn to this statutory instrument and thank the Minister for laying out the reasons behind it and its intention. Everybody wishes to reduce or completely stop the use of fraud in postal votes and stop people’s votes being stolen by others in our democracy. Some provisions in the regulations will help with that, such as those on political actors handling postal votes. However, I believe the main thrust of these regulations, which is about the handing in of postal votes at the polling station or electoral offices, is doomed to failure because it is impractical. I shall explain why and look forward to an answer.
Let us assume that I am a fraudster and I understand electoral law. I go out and harvest postal votes. I will know not to hand them in to the polling station—I will do it before election day—or to the electoral office. I will put them in a Royal Mail box. Will this statutory instrument achieve its number one aim of reducing electoral fraud? Practically, it can be circumvented just by putting the votes into a Royal Mail box. Let me show the Committee the stupidity of this through my city of Sheffield. I could go to the town hall, where within a couple of metres of the post box for the electoral office—just around the corner, probably 60 metres—there are two Royal Mail boxes. I would put my 100, 50 or 30 harvested postal votes into the Royal Mail box because why I got them or why I am handing them in will not be checked. It is completely outside the law. This will not stop the harvesting of postal votes and fraudulent people getting them back into the system.
It is also impractical for another reason. In the example I have just given in Sheffield, let us say that I am an upright citizen who believes in saving the taxpayer money. I decide to put in my one postal vote, which is my mother’s, but because I do it after the electoral office is closed my mother’s vote will not be counted, even though the 50 that have just been put into the post box around the corner by the harvester will be valid. I do not think that those who have drafted this statutory instrument understand the logistics of elections. What are the Minister’s and the Government’s views on that differential?
While I support the reduction of postal vote fraud, for those reasons I believe these regulations are flawed and impractical and will not have the desired effect. I look forward to hearing the answers from the Minister, which may alleviate my concerns, but I think that the regulations will not stop vote harvesters and that the votes of some people who genuinely cannot get to the polling station on the day or to an electoral office between nine and five will be invalid, simply because of the difference of a couple of metres in where somebody decides to hand in their postal ballot.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall add one further issue that concerns me, partly from what the Minister said in his introduction and partly from my reading of the instrument. It relates to the definition of “political campaigner”. This appears several times in the statutory instrument. Is a person who is a friend of an independent candidate a political campaigner? The regulations permit an individual to hand in up to five postal votes of other voters at a polling station, but a political campaigner cannot handle a postal vote. Therefore, the definition of a “political campaigner” matters. Does it include a friend of a candidate who is independent of any political party? Is that person a political campaigner?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, it is pleasure to hear from noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Hayward. I felt a bit nostalgic at the “Back to the Future” moment, when the report by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, from 2026 was announced. I thought that there might have been an election and a new Government, with the noble Lord promoted to look at elections.
Like other noble Lords, we on these Benches also support the intention to reduce voter fraud. I thank the Minister for introducing the SI. I will raise an important point for noble Lords to consider. From my understanding, the Government have not consulted relevant stakeholders on this issue. I assume that there would have been some consultation to bring the regulations forward, but the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers—ALACE—has not been consulted. That concerns me, and must concern other noble Lords.
Since, from my understanding, the Government have not consulted ALACE, I will pick up on its points of concern and help the Minister on some of them. I do not want to repeat noble Lords’ points, but ALACE is concerned that the regulations will create more work for polling station staff. If significant numbers of postal votes are handed in on polling day, this might cause unnecessary delays for other electors, particularly at a general election. What does the Minister think about that concern?
What are the Government’s thoughts on the imposition of new duties and responsibilities on polling station staff, and on reception staff at council offices, who will have to decide whether to reject postal votes? What about the unnecessary disfranchisement of some electors, who will have completed postal voting packs correctly, including by providing their signature and date of birth on the postal vote, but which also have to be returned with the ballot paper?
The Opposition have a number on questions. What will happen to those who are already registered as a proxy voter for more than four electors or more than two domestically residing electors? Is the relationship between proxy and elector not important in preventing coercive proxy voting? Will there be special circumstances by which a proxy can act as such for more than four electors, should they be family members who are unable to vote themselves and the chosen proxy is the only trustworthy option for them?
Postal voting is an important means to ensure elderly people with mobility or financial issues are not prevented from exercising their democratic right to vote. Given that the elderly are more likely to face problems navigating a digital application compared with the more familiar written form, is there a concern that the move to digital applications may act as a hindrance to ensuring that the elderly can vote? What is the Government’s assessment of the number of proxy voters abusing this system to coerce others and steal their vote, compared with the number of proxy voters who need to use the system and do so fairly? With voter turnout at a relative low compared with the previous century, what is the Government’s assessment of the impact that additional requirements to vote will have on voter turnout?
Finally, the introduction of photo ID has resulted in clear evidence that some electors have been denied a vote as a consequence. Does the Minister recognise this in relation to these regulations? How will the Government ensure the regulations do not compound that situation? I look forward to his response.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their many thoughtful and specific questions. It reminds me a little, going back to a previous career, of when I had rooms full of volunteers asking me very similar questions about guidance that had come out, which we had to then deal with. For the record, I also thank my noble friend Lord Hayward for correcting me earlier; yes, of course it was 2016. Perhaps my dyslexia kicked in and I got ahead of myself, but for the record it was not in fact 2026.
I will address some of those questions head on. Others I may need to consider and come back to noble Lords on, because they were quite detailed. The first thing I want to deal with directly—I did nod quite strongly when this issue came up during consideration of some SIs last week, and that has always been my view—is consolidation of electoral law. I worked in political parties for three decades, and I know others in this room have also been very actively involved over a much longer period.
The Government remain committed to the continued integrity of our electoral law and processes. That is why their immediate priority has been to implement the measures flowing from the Elections Act 2022. Electoral law is complex, as everybody in this room knows, but it is understood by those who administer elections and referendums. It is robust and we can, as we have in the past, rely on it and our electoral administrators to underpin free and fair elections, and have confidence in their results. That is not to say that legislation cannot and should not be revisited, revised and improved from time to time. It should, but that takes significant consideration and policy development and is not something to rush out and potentially get wrong. That is probably as clear as I can be today on consolidation of electoral law. It is certainly on my mind, and I am very happy to continue that discussion, as I offered to do last week.
On the point made by my noble friend Lord Hayward, the meeting will of course be arranged, and we will get back to him on the two points he raised directly in the Chamber last week. I put that on the record for him.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, had very well thought-through questions, as ever; we seem to be having these discussions fairly regularly. We note the concerns raised about the potential challenges of implementing the measures and the impact of new requirements on the administration of polling stations. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators on the implementation of these measures in order to ensure that administrators have the necessary support for their delivery, and on raising awareness among the electorate of the changes and the new requirements.
We also expect that political parties will want to bring the new requirements to the attention of their members. We intend that the changes will be communicated to electors directly via forms, including the postal voting statement and poll cards, and through information made available to electors via GOV.UK. Additionally, information will be displayed on the Electoral Commission’s and other agencies’ websites, and in information provided by local authorities. We will continue to work very closely with the Electoral Commission to develop this information and awareness. If noble Lords feel that more needs to be done in that regard, I ask them to please make sure that they raise that with us on an ongoing basis.
In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on the friend of a candidate who was an independent, that situation is laid out clearly in the Act, but if they were helping and not acting to get them elected, that is okay. Again, it may be better if I confirm that in writing to the noble Lord, so that he has that laid out clearly.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I would be happy with a written statement from the Minister. The issue is an important one. The friend may be campaigning, as opposed to just handing in, but if the friend is campaigning for an independent candidate they may think of themselves as not being a political campaigner, which would ban them from doing so.
Lord Mott (Con)
Indeed. I would be happy to lay that out clearly in writing.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked probably the most interesting question of all. Overall, the legislation and changes are there to deter. We are obviously very aware of some of the problems that have occurred around the country in the past. We want to make sure that we strike the right balance between being mindful of security and keeping the electoral process accessible.
On the point the noble Lord highlighted, I suspect, if we are being honest, that we simply do not have the data available to say whether there are groups of people picking up bundles of 20 or 30 postal ballot papers and distributing them across different postboxes in a particular electoral area. The honest answer from me today has to be: let us see how the legislation develops in practice. If we believe there is a significant problem, as the noble Lord described, obviously we will need to look at that.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I do not think that was quite my question. I am trying to understand, as it is not apparent to me from reading the statutory instrument, why a postal vote pack posted in a Royal Mail box will be treated differently from, or even preferentially to, one posted on the same day in a council postal box, which could be a couple of metres away from each other.
Lord Mott (Con)
I will have to come back to the noble Lord on that in more detail. The point he made earlier concerns me. The potential for a bundle of ballot packs to be collected up and put through a door or letterbox is something that we really need to look at. I will take it away and look at it in more detail, and I will certainly come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Hayward (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is pursuing a key point. It has been the case in certain investigations that fingerprinting has been used to establish who has handled the ballot papers, which would cover an element of the aspects to which he referred but not necessarily all of them.
Lord Mott (Con)
That is true. I know there is one example in the Pickles review that I was on the ground for: in Bradford, at the 2005 general election. I think I am right in saying that it was not just fingerprints but analysis of signatures. The police were able to identify and take action because the individuals who were filling in the ballot papers did them on top of each other. It was not just the signatures they could identify; they could identify them on every single one, which enabled them to prosecute. I saw that up close several years ago.
To close this discussion, I know that all noble Lords believe that preserving our democratic processes is paramount. I will certainly come back on the very important points raised, but I am pleased to be able to introduce these measures.
House of Lords
Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to establish an independent inquiry to review the seven allegations of child sex abuse against Sir Edward Heath left unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer in 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
The Government have no plans to establish an independent inquiry to review the outstanding allegations against Sir Edward Heath. It remains for the local police and crime commissioner to consider whether an inquiry is necessary.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I first express sincere thanks for the support that I, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and cross-party allies received from all quarters and parts of this House during the long period before Mike Veale, former chief constable first of Wiltshire and then of Cleveland, was found guilty of gross misconduct and barred from policing for life. In view of that July judgment, is it not imperative to carry out an independent review of the seven allegations made against Sir Edward Heath long after his death, which Veale failed to clear up after a long investigation that one of his officers contemptibly publicised on television in front of Ted Heath’s house in Salisbury? Must there not be a strong suspicion that Veale left these allegations open, neither proved nor disproved, to save face after failing to find a single shred of evidence to support any of the accusations, despite getting his officers to rifle through all of Heath’s private papers, box after box, in the Bodleian Library during an operation that cost over £1 million, paid for by the Home Office?
Finally—I apologise for speaking at some length—do we not owe it to the memory of a dead statesman, the only First Minister of the Crown ever to be suspected of such serious crimes, to get at the truth of this grave matter and settle the doubts created by the disgraced Veale?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with my noble friend: it is unfortunate that Operation Conifer was not able to resolve conclusively the position in respect of all the allegations made against Sir Edward. I obviously recognise the House’s desire to find a solution, but the investigation has already been subject to considerable external scrutiny and the Government do not see the grounds for government intervention. The fact that it involved a former Prime Minister does not of itself warrant government intervention. The Operation Conifer summary closure report emphasised that
“no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that Sir Edward Heath would have been interviewed under caution”
had he still been alive.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is not the news that the Northern Ireland Assembly is amending the law on anonymity in rape cases to be greatly welcomed? If the law in England had been similarly amended, it is highly unlikely that the injustices in the cases of Sir Edward Heath, Lord Leon Brittan, Sir Cliff Richard, Mr Harvey Proctor and Mr Paul Gambaccini, and in the Janner case, would ever have arisen. Is it not time to reopen the debate on pre-charge anonymity in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right that these new laws have come into force in Northern Ireland, but the authorised professional practice guidance on media relations, issued by the College of Policing, already makes clear that the police
“will not name those arrested or suspected of a crime, other than in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so”.
In May 2018, the college updated this guidance to make it clear that it applies where allegations are “made against deceased persons”.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us from all parts of this House believe it is vital that there is an independent review of the shockingly unresolved allegations against Sir Edward Heath? Is he further aware that one of the reasons for a review is that it is hard to feel complete confidence in the 2017 official review, including a senior investigating officer from Operation Hydrant, since Veale’s decisions were examined by police officers who perhaps lacked sufficient independence from him?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I say to the noble Lord that I am of course aware of this. There were three main forms of scrutiny during the investigation. There was an independent scrutiny panel to ensure proportionality; the role of the panel members was to check and test the decision-making and approach in the investigation. At the end of the investigation the panel issued a statement. The noble Lord referred to Operation Hydrant. In September 2016 and May 2017, there were two reviews which concluded that the investigation was proportionate, legitimate and in accordance with national guidance. Finally, there was a review in January 2017 by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, as it then was, of whether the resources assigned to the investigation by the Home Office were being deployed in accordance with value for money principles. The review concluded that they were.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated that there will not be an independent inquiry under this Government’s watch. Given that this is an issue which needs to bring closure to both the alleged victims and to the family of Sir Edward Heath, what does the Minister suggest should be the way forward as an alternative to allowing this damaging situation to drift on?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I said to other noble Lords, of course we all regret the fact that the damaging situation arose in the first place, I am sure. However, this is a matter for the local police and crime commissioner and, as recently as 2019, the then police and crime commissioner said that Operation Conifer was scrutinised by an independent review and found to have been “reasonable and proportionate”, and he remained satisfied then that this was still the case.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is hearing the voice of the House. It is difficult to understand the reluctance of the Government to bring this matter to a clear closure. Now the police side has in some ways settled, here we have these foul-mouthed accusations from a totally unreliable source allowed to drift in the wind with no attempt to tidy up and bring closure to the whole situation. Is this not a stain on British justice? Is it not up to the Government now to take very firm action to follow the advice of my noble friend Lord Lexden, and indeed many others, and bring this matter to honest clarity, instead of leaving it in the ill-mannered way in which at present the debate stands?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I have said repeatedly, I of course understand my noble friend’s concerns. But the fact is that the Government are of the opinion that the original investigation has been scrutinised to a very high degree and that no further government action is therefore necessary.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they do not propose to have an investigation into the allegations against the former Prime Minister. However, there is a wider question which remains, which is how the wider system allowed Mike Veale to continue within policing and the wider policing family, despite two separate sets of allegations against him. There are also questions about the accountability of our PCCs and how they dealt with that particular situation. Does the Minister think there is a case for looking at the way disciplinary actions are expedited and sometimes abused, to maintain the public’s faith in the police force and the PCCs?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I would say to the noble Lord that of course we have arrived at a situation where Mr Veale has been held to account, so the public should therefore have faith. It perhaps took too long, but he was appropriately investigated along the way. In November 2017, the PCC in Wiltshire referred two matters concerning Mr Veale to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The investigation related partly to an allegation that a mobile belonging to Wiltshire police was deliberately damaged. He was subject to a management action plan—that was felt to be appropriate after the investigation by the various authorities. So I think it is unfair to say that nothing happened to Mr Veale, but perhaps it did take too long to reach a conclusion. As noble Lords might appreciate, I would certainly agree with that.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend understand that many of us simply do not comprehend how a relatively senior police officer could have given credence to allegations that were such patent rubbish?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, with hindsight of course we can call them “patent rubbish” but, at the time, all these allegations had to be investigated; I do not think there is any doubt about that.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, while all friends and admirers of Sir Edward Heath must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and others for the way they have pursued this, is it not the case that with the jailing of the man who first made these allegations and the conviction of the former chief constable for gross misconduct we can take comfort in the fact that the allegations against Sir Edward have been effectively resolved and disposed of?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it would be unwise of me to get too much into the weeds of what the original investigation looked at and the various aspects of it, but I should stress that in the two weeks after Wiltshire police made a media appeal for anyone with information to come forward, 118 people contacted them. It is definitely more than just one man’s word.
Artificial Intelligence: Regulation
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of existing regulations and practices in relation to artificial intelligence, and what plans they have to monitor and control artificial intelligence (1) in the UK, and (2) in cooperation with international partners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
The AI Regulation White Paper set out our proposed framework for governing AI, including plans to establish a monitoring and evaluation process to track performance. This will complement the central AI risk function which we have established to identify measures and mitigate risks. We work closely with international partners through the G7, the GPAI and the Council of Europe to understand AI risks, and are leading the way by convening the AI Safety Summit in November.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government hosting the AI summit at Bletchley Park, which is an opportunity to define the guard-rails on the use and misuse of AI with international partners. AI is borderless, as we know, so co-operation with others such as the USA, China and the EU is vital. Given the advances in draft legislation on AI by our neighbours in the EU, what plans do the Government have to continue the co-operation and dialogue with these other interests to give our thriving UK AI businesses certainty in their ability to sell and trade into all jurisdictions?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right to highlight the essential need for interoperability of AI given the way that AI is produced across so many jurisdictions. In addition to the global safety summit next week, we continue our very deep engagement with a huge range of multilateral groups. These include the OECD, the Council of Europe, the GPAI, the UN, various standards development groups, the G20 and the G7, along with a range of bilateral groups, including —just signed this year—the Atlantic declaration with the US and the Hiroshima accord with Japan.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Professor Stuart Russell memorably said:
“There are more regulations on sandwich shops than there are on AI companies”.
After a disappointing White Paper, in the light of the forthcoming summit will the Government put more risk and regulatory meat in their AI sandwich? Is it not high time that we started addressing the AI risks so clearly identified at the G7 meetings this year with clear, effective and proportionate regulation?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am pleased to say that the Government spend more on AI safety than any other Government of any country. We have assembled the greatest concentration of AI safety expertise anywhere and, based on that input, we feel that nobody has sufficient understanding of the risks or potential of AI at this point to regulate in a way that is not premature. The result of premature regulation is regulation that creates unnecessary friction for businesses, or runs the risk of protecting or failing to protect from emerging dangers of which we are as yet unaware.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, we learned again just this week that our own public sector is already using this very powerful technology across the board in Whitehall on matters such as criminal justice, health and education, with great opportunity but great risk. Where is the statutory framework for that current use of the technology? At a time when so many of the Minister’s colleagues in the Government want to walk away from international agreement, what hope is there for us to deal with technology on a global scale without new agreements, not fewer ones?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I certainly do not recognise a situation in which many of my governmental colleagues want to walk away from international regulations; indeed, I have just provided quite a long list of them. It is entirely appropriate that, within the bounds of safety and their remit, different public sector bodies use this crucial new technology. They do so not in an unregulated way but with strict adherence to existing regulations.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify how the Government intend to regulate the use of NHS data, particularly the contract for its collection, which is awarded to an overseas company? Furthermore, the UKRI has requested that the Government invest in the significant amount of computing power which we do not have but require for generating AI in healthcare.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The Independent Review of the Future of Compute, which we accepted in its entirety, guided us to commit £900 million initially to buying compute. We have confirmed the purchase of an exascale system in Edinburgh as well as the UK’s soon-to-be most powerful supercomputer, in Bristol. There will be further announcements on this as part of the summit next week. The use of NHS data is subject to not only stringent contractual requirements but, already, stringent regulations about data privacy.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we need far greater public engagement and public discourse around AI? Is he aware of the alignment assemblies used in Taiwan to such good effect? Will he consider taking a similar approach to such benefits in the UK?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I very much agree with my noble friend that we need maximum public acceptance of AI. However, that must be based on its trustworthiness. That is why we are pursuing, among other things, the global AI Safety Summit next week. I am not familiar with the Taiwanese approach but will look into it, and look forward to discussing it in due course.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it has been reported that the Government want big tech companies to agree a set of voluntary guidelines at the AI summit. Can the Minister confirm this? If so, why are the Government not seeking more robust systems of oversight and regulation, notwithstanding some of the advantages of AI, when the dangers of unchecked technology are, as we have heard, so high?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I do not believe that anyone anywhere is advocating unregulated AI. The voluntary agreement is, of course, a United States agreement secured with the White House. We welcome it, although it needs to be codified to make it non-voluntary, but that will be discussed as part of the summit next week.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I would like to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because Professor Russell also said that he would like to ban certain types of AI deepfakes. With elections looming in this country, can the Minister tell the House whether he thinks AI developers should be banned from creating software that allows the impersonation of people, particularly high-profile politicians?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The noble Viscount raises an extremely worrying and serious issue: the use of deepfakes to impersonate politicians. The integrity of our entire political process could be placed at risk with untrammelled and irresponsible use of these technologies. However, I simply cannot see any pathway to banning these technologies unilaterally, as where they are developed could be absolutely anywhere on earth. I am afraid that any step we are likely to take will not affect that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank your Lordships’ House. I will follow on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Huge commercial benefits are possible from AI. We have talked about the dangers, but there are benefits as well. However, as the Made Smarter Review made clear, the management skills to implement the digital opportunities of today are insufficient, so they are quite clearly not going to be there to implement the benefits of the future. In conjunction with his colleagues in the business department, what is the Minister doing to make sure that we have the skills to be able to take advantage of this technology?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Yes, I thank the noble Lord for his point, which is a really important one. There is no defined curriculum of skills for AI anywhere, and there is such a very large range of different types of skills from data science, analytics and computer science, among others, to do that. I do not believe that anyone has produced what might look like a core curriculum of those things. We are, on the other hand, investing very serious funds into education at all levels, from school age to college age and advanced studies as well. I very much take the point, and driving global acceptance and adoption of AI is absolutely key to realising its value.
Health: Migraines
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Londesborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of people who suffer from migraines; and what assessment they have made of the consequential impact on the workforce.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare an interest as a migraineur.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, NHS England estimates that 10 million people live with migraine in the UK, and that 3 million workdays are lost every year due to migraine-related absenteeism, which costs almost £4.4 billion. The Government are focused on supporting people with health conditions, including migraine, to remain and thrive at work through initiatives such as the Disability Confident scheme and the expanding access to quality occupational health provision and through evidence-based NICE guidance, which supports healthcare professionals and commissioners.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his response to a Question that was last asked in this House in 1961. Fast forward 60 years, and the NHS devotes less than £200 million a year to treating a condition that, as the Minister says, affects 10 million people in the UK—many undiagnosed—and which costs us, according to my figures, backed up by the Migraine Trust, some £10 billion per annum. That figure comes from adding the fiscal and health burdens to the widespread loss of productivity across the economy. Given the slow and limited access to effective treatments, the lack of GP training and a shortage of neurologists, does the Minister agree that this invisible disability deserves much greater priority and resourcing across the NHS?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I first congratulate the noble Lord for highlighting an important matter that has eluded the acute collective mind of your Lordships’ House at Questions for far too long. To add to what the noble Lord was saying, the House may know that migraine is the third most common disease in the world, behind dental caries and tension-type headaches. To answer his Question, I reassure the noble Lord that migraine and neurological conditions more generally are taken very seriously by the NHS. The Getting it Right First Time programme’s national specialty report on neurology makes specific recommendations on migraine care and is complemented by the NHS RightCare headache and migraine toolkit.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the NHS website helpfully provides real-time information on wait times for headache and migraine referrals. Less helpfully, these currently range between 33 weeks and 53 weeks in my area of England. Is the Minister concerned about the impact of these wait times on the workforce, and would he support making structured headache services available in primary care so that we can try to get people to treatment more quickly?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Those who unfortunately suffer from migraine—as we know it comes in different types, stages and forms—can call 111, go to their GP if they can get an appointment quickly or go to their local pharmacy. I hope the noble Lord will find it helpful that the NHS workforce plan, announced recently, includes £2.4 billion funding over the next five years and provides projections for the help needed for dealing with such conditions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s original Question focused on the impact on the workplace. There is a lot of evidence from the Migraine Trust that employers are very unsympathetic to employees suffering from migraine. Does the Minister agree that, if the Government are to take forward a more cohesive strategy, education and working with employers to understand the impact of migraine on many of their employees may well pay dividends?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord, who has more experience in these matters than me, is quite right. My understanding is that, where an employee suffers from migraine, if the employer does not take it seriously or make certain allowances, this has a great detrimental effect on the employee. The noble Lord will know that the law says someone is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a
“substantial and long-term adverse effect”
on their
“ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”,
including work. There is work to be done engaging more with employers to make sure they have that understanding.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, can we clear that up? The Migraine Trust has had many sufferers saying they have been discriminated against at work. Some are forced into part-time jobs or even out of work. Given that the top triggers for migraine in the workplace include lighting, noise, stress, screens—things that employers could control—is the Minister concerned that, according to a Migraine Trust survey, over half of people affected said their employer had not made reasonable adjustments for them to stay at work, even though, as the Minister has just said, the law requires them to do that? What does he have to say to that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness is completely right. This follows on from my answer to the noble Lord. It is very important that employers get the message that they must make reasonable adjustments. It also brings into question whether someone should say that they are suffering from migraines when, for example, they go to an interview. Nobody has to tell their employer or potential employer that they are disabled, where that would be the right word to use. As I have said, more work must be done to ensure that employers have a greater understanding. It is of course in their interests to do so because, with that understanding, the employee’s productivity will be greater.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Migraine Trust and others are highlighting the fact that, as well as new drugs coming through the treatment pipeline, there is the—quite complex—possibility of treating migraine through diet. This is a very complex area. The chair of the British Association for the Study of Headache is calling for a nationally agreed educational framework and quality standard for primary care. Does the Minister agree with me that it would make sense to give GPs and other health professionals the tools to approach this in an organised way using the best possible treatments?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right. It allows me to say—I asked about it during briefings—that GPs are given regular updates and training on how to treat migraines. I also asked as to whether the training was taken up properly by GPs, who we know are under pressure, and the answer is yes. Coming back to pharmacies, greater training is being encouraged and given by the Government to be sure that those who work in pharmacies have a greater understanding in terms of giving direct and more immediate treatment for migraines.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, migraine is indeed unpleasant, but does the Minister have any estimate of the number of people who suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome in this country? It is a deeply serious affliction that certainly prevents people from working for long periods and there is no effective treatment. Can he comment on the numbers and research into treatment?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I might be able to help the noble Baroness in some way. It is estimated that 190,000 migraine attacks occur every day in the UK. Over three-quarters of people who get migraine have at least one attack each month. Chronic migraine—it is a justified question—when a person gets a headache on 15 or more days a month, eight of them migraine, is less common but affects about two in 100 people.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I have a non-pecuniary interest to declare. All this discussion on the advice that employers clearly need surely leads us to believe that we need a national occupational health programme, which could save tens of billions of pounds. Does the Minister agree?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will certainly reflect upon that and take it away, but I have given some idea as to the work we are doing with employers and—I say again—it is an incredibly important issue for all employers, particularly small businesses. There are 5.4 million or so of those in this country, for which there is little access to occupational health—something I could talk about another time—where advice needed for employees who suffer is better given.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest. I have had well-controlled chronic migraine, which was not managed until I was able to access a specialist. It was welcome that NICE recently approved a new drug for acute migraine and noted that the condition affects every aspect of life. Currently, when triptan is ineffective, there is no further standard treatment and people are advised to see a specialist. However, there is a significant shortage of access to those specialists and long waiting lists. I return to the question from the other side of the Chamber. What can we do to improve access to those specialists, get more migraines under control and those people back into the workplace? What would the Minister’s response be to the provision of something like migraine hubs such as those we have for musculoskeletal conditions?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed. Just to echo what my noble friend said, as she will know, migraine treatments include painkillers such as ibruprofen and paracetamol, medicines called triptans, to which she referred, and medicines including anti-emetics which stop one feeling sick. More than that, I allude to the NHS national workforce plan, whereby we have a long-term vision for the training required and individuals that we need to help deal with this difficult affliction.
Counter-Disinformation Unit: Israel and Palestine
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps their Counter-Disinformation Unit is taking to identify and combat disinformation on social media in respect of the conflict in Israel and Palestine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology takes the threat posed by disinformation in relation to the conflict extremely seriously. We are taking a three-pronged approach, working in lockstep with communities, technology companies and across government. The Government are working to identify fake accounts, known as bots, and working closely with social media companies to ensure the removal of illegal content and content in breach of their terms of service.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Given the second Question today, perhaps the Minister will confirm that much of the work of the unit is outsourced to an artificial intelligence company, logically.ai, which I understand is based in Yorkshire. I am interested in exactly how the output of the unit is conveyed to others. The Minister has confirmed that there is active interaction with social media companies, and there is an effort to identify the sources of this misinformation, many of which are state actors. However, some are individuals in this country and elsewhere. What happens when those sources have been identified? Who takes the action further?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I will have to write to the noble Lord to confirm the Counter-Disinformation Unit’s use of logically.ai. Where the unit identifies disinformation being deployed at scale, it would first engage with the relevant ministry to allow it to respond. On occasion, it will engage directly with social media companies, if the content it is seeing either is illegal or runs contrary to the terms of service declared by that company.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, there has been a huge rise in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia on social media, much of it due to disinformation. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to educate the public to spot disinformation and stop them forwarding and repeating it?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. In the escalating battle between those pushing disinformation at us and our attempts to limit it, media literacy is key. Under the terms of the Online Safety Bill, which is due to become law in just a few days, Ofcom is obliged to produce a media literacy strategy to generate awareness of and resilience to misinformation and disinformation. It is obliged also to create an expert advisory committee on misinformation and disinformation online. In addition, there is now a media literacy programme fund that awards up to £700,000 of grant funding for media literacy programmes. All this is dependent on platforms setting out clearly their terms of service, so that users can access them in the full knowledge of the kind of information that they can expect to see.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the EU Commission has formally opened an investigation into X, the platform previously referred to as Twitter, to ensure that it complies with the Digital Services Act following the onslaught of the current conflict in Israel and Gaza, Palestine. Could the Minister outline what discussions and engagement have taken place with the European Commission in relation to its and the UK’s investigations?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
On 11 October, shortly after the commencement of hostilities, the Secretary of State for DSIT convened a meeting of social media platforms. These included Google, YouTube, Meta, X, Snap and TikTok. She made her expectation very clear that not only would illegal content be rapidly and urgently removed but authoritative content would be promoted to create more clarity around what is accurate content in this fast-moving and difficult situation. Those meetings are ongoing daily at official level and are accompanied by detailed correspondence on the acts of those platforms.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, it is good to hear that the Government are engaging with the social media platforms on this incredibly serious issue. Twitter has most aptly been renamed X, but without irony: one goes into this area with great caution, as it is distressing and nasty. I am told that X is currently laying off people whose job it is to monitor and remove posts that contain disinformation. Given this, and given that we have made progress in looking at social media platforms, what are we doing to require them to do this other than simply engaging with them?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I absolutely agree with the most reverend Primate about the seriousness and horror of the situation. On requiring social media companies to act, the Online Safety Bill will become law in a matter of days; it places much more rigorous requirements on the social media companies to remove content which is illegal and is harmful to children and to have only content that is consistent with their published terms of service.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, what are Ministers doing to engage with the leaders of the relevant religious communities to persuade their followers to avoid inflammatory actions and words, which are causing such trouble and intercommunity tension?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
That is an important part of the Government’s approach to this very difficult, nasty situation. Last week, the Secretary of State met leaders of Jewish communities, and ongoing meetings are similarly being convened by DLUHC with all communities. We are establishing bridges between these communities and the social media platforms. One advantage they have in that dialogue is that they are accorded trusted flagger status, which greatly reduces the amount of time it takes to raise content of concern.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the House has previously debated the role and work of the Counter-Disinformation Unit. I do not think anybody was particularly convinced by the assurances which the Minister gave back in July. These issues have been brought into sharp focus by recent events. At the time of that last debate, we were promised a meeting. Unless our Front Bench was left off the invite list, I am not aware of that follow-up meeting having taken place. Given some of the Minister’s responses today, that meeting is now more urgent than ever. Can the Minister commit to meet with those of us who are deeply concerned about this issue?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I remember the July debate very well. I made a commitment then to meet with concerned Members, which I am happy to repeat. Again, I ask that concerned Members write to me to indicate that they would like to meet. Those who have written to me, have met with me.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that the Online Safety Bill will come into law very shortly. Will he commit to setting up the advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation as soon as possible after this? The current situation clearly demonstrates both the need for it and for it to come to swift conclusions.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I very much share the noble Lord’s analysis of the need for this group to come rapidly into existence. It is, of course, the role of Ofcom to create it. I will undertake to liaise with it to make sure that that is speeded up.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, it was reported that a hospital had been hit. Immediately—sadly, in this modern day—the media like to break news, not to check how accurate it is. In practice, when we find out exactly what did happen, the damage has already been done because it went out to billions of people who wanted to believe that the Israelis did it.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
That was very concerning. I am unable to comment specifically on the role of the BBC reporting on it. Combined with other sources of misinformation and disinformation online, it greatly amplified the damage that was done. We continue to work with the social media companies to ensure that they promote authoritative versions of the truth based on their use of fact-checkers, whether third-party independents or part of their own organisation.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I will take this brief opportunity to update noble Lords on one change to business this week. The usual channels have agreed that, for the convenience of the House, any Message from the House of Commons on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill should be considered as last business tomorrow, rather than on Thursday, as originally planned. The rest of the business tomorrow remains unchanged.
The Commons will conclude its consideration of the Economic Crime Bill tomorrow. Noble Lords will have an hour to table amendments after its Message is returned. The precise time will be confirmed on the annunciator tomorrow. The Government Whips Office will issue supporting communications through the usual channels. We have also published an updated version of forthcoming business confirming this change. Copies are now available in the usual places.
City of London (Markets) Bill
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Energy Bill [HL]
Tuesday 24th October 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 176-I Marshalled list for Consideration of a Commons Reason - (23 Oct 2023)
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 274B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 274C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 274B was added to the Energy Bill during the previous consideration of Commons amendments. As the House will be aware, the amendment was debated in the other place last week and the Government Motion to disagree to the amendment was passed with a substantial majority.
I can confirm to the House that our position remains the same. The amendments would commit the Government to a consultation on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes. The amendment sets out with whom we would consult and commits the Government to bringing forward proposals to remove identified barriers to community energy within a brief six-month timescale.
I welcome the constructive engagement from across the House, in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I welcome her continued efforts throughout the passage of the Bill to ensure that the interests of the community energy sector are heard in this Chamber, but I reassure the noble Baroness that, on this issue, the Government have already made a clear commitment to the consultation.
As part of this commitment, we have outlined that we will engage in an open and collaborative way with the community energy sector, via the community energy contact group, to design the consultation. In fact, officials are already engaging on exactly that, and earlier this month held a very constructive discussion on the consultation with the group. Given our existing commitment to consult, and our ongoing engagement with the sector, we therefore believe that it is of no additional value to put the specifics in primary legislation.
In addition, there are further issues with the previous amendments that meant that we could not support their inclusion in the Bill. We clearly cannot commit to putting forward proposals to remove barriers that are preventing the development of community energy schemes before we know what barriers are raised in the consultation, or the implications of removing them. It would be remiss of us to agree to put that into primary legislation. Placing this obligation on the Government would be putting the cart before the horse.
However, I reassure the House yet again that the Government will carry out the consultation and continue to work closely with the sector to do so. I also reiterate the Government’s support in principle for community energy; we recognise the role that community groups play in our efforts to eliminate our contribution to climate change. I participated in a great visit to North Kensington Community Energy two weeks ago where I was able to see first-hand some of the important work that the sector does and to meet the contact group.
More widely, government support for the sector is demonstrated through existing support that we have already put in place, such as the £10 million community energy fund. I am pleased to tell the House that we aim to open applications to that fund as soon as we possibly can.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for his sort of co-operation through the passage of the Bill. It is hugely important. It was introduced about 16 months ago, and I do not wish to delay it any further. But I speak with great regret that the Government find themselves unable to agree to my simple and incredibly uncontroversial amendment, which just seeks to clarify the Government’s commitment to consult on the barriers that community energy schemes face. I am very pleased that the Minister went to visit one that was working, but I assure him that a lot are not.
While I welcome the steps the Government have taken to re-establish the community energy fund—for instance, reporting to Parliament and consulting—it is important to put a timescale on these plans; 18 months is fair and reasonable. Without a timescale there is a risk that this will not happen. It has been demonstrated that this issue has widespread support across both Houses. When we have something that we agree on, we ought to just get on with it and do it. I fear that this small but significant issue will get drowned out in next year’s general election. I would appreciate reassurance from the Minister that this is a needless worry and that the Government are committed.
I would just like to get some clarity on a couple of points. What will be the basis of this annual report to Parliament? Is it simply to report on the progress of projects, or will it address the challenges that we face and the best route to sort them out? My amendment also sought to ensure that, should any consultation find that there are barriers—new barriers, for instance—the Government will commit to taking steps to address these. Being candid, we know that there are barriers, and I appreciate the argument that you should not legislate for the unknown, but I am simply trying to get an assurance that they would plan to lift barriers that we know are there—including ones that we do not know.
To return to the issue of the consultation, we have rehearsed what issues need to be resolved; thanks to the Bill committee in the other place, there are many views on record. I do not believe that much is likely to change in the next year. While I agree that we should follow due process here, it must not be used as a reason for delay. I urge the Minister to open this consultation ASAP, so that we can get this ball rolling.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure following the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who has done such an enormous amount of work on this issue—I pay tribute to that.
I was the person who started these amendments on their way back in December 2022, after we started work on this Bill last July. A consultation is something but what we really need is action, so I have a simple question for the Minister. As he said, this consultation has already started this month; if the Government see or identify through that consultation some simple, easy-to-remove barriers, will they act on them immediately rather than waiting for the end of the formal process? Surely, if action can be taken then projects, such as the one in Kensington to which the Minister referred, can go forward.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on her persistence in this area. One of the strong messages that came out between Committee and Report in this House was the slow progress, and lack of progress, on community schemes. I very much hope that this consultation will reverse that trend. It seems slightly ironic, though typical, that the objection from the Commons is on there being a timetable, whereas we all know that for anything to happen, you need a timetable to focus.
On these Benches we are now keen to get this Bill on the statute book and that it becomes an Act. It has been delayed a number of times, mainly from the government side, as it has progressed through both Houses. There are a lot of important parts of this Bill that need to happen. I very much hope that the future systems operator will be quickly nominated and can move into action, so that a number of the strategic bottlenecks that we have in our energy sector can be swept away and solved. Again, I thank the noble Baroness for her persistence in this area, and I hope that consultation will move to action very quickly.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her persistence on this. I agree with what she is trying to achieve. The Minister came dangerously close to Rumsfeld-speak when he effectively said that we cannot know the unknowables. All that we and the amendment were suggesting was that a report needs to come forward and then we can determine how we need to act, which seems entirely sensible.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson: it is time that the Bill got on to the statute book. The Bill has been far too long in digestion. Let us hope we can now eat it all and enjoy its flavour.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all Members who have contributed to this extremely brief debate. To have a brief debate on the back of a Bill that now has 335 clauses, one of the longest Bills that we have passed in this House for many years, is quite ironic but probably appropriate.
On the issue in question, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her remarks. She spoke about the timing of the consultation. All I can tell her is that we will launch it as soon as we can; I am afraid I cannot put a specific date on it, but I hope it will not be too long away now. Officials need to continue their discussions with the community energy sector about the content of the consultation before we can launch it. I confirm absolutely that officials are working closely with the Community Energy Contact Group—I have met it myself —and we are keen to get on with this as quickly as possible.
Similarly, on the content of the consultation, until we finish those discussions we cannot commit to exactly what the consultation will include. That really would be putting the cart before the horse—unknown unknowns, as the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, referred to. On the commitment to publish an annual report on the community energy sector, which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, spoke about, I confirm that, as with the consultation, we will work closely with the sector to design exactly what the report will look like.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Boycott, asked me to commit to removing barriers. Until we know what those barriers are, it is impossible for me to give a vague commitment. If removing a barrier is simple and straightforward then of course we would want to do it, but we are talking in generalities without knowing what the specific issues are. Let us have a bit of patience and wait for the outcome of the consultation. The House can be reassured that we are committed to the consultation and keen to see the community energy sector go forward, which is why we have provided the new £10 million fund to aid it to do just that. In the personal discussions I had with the sector, it was extremely keen and enthusiastic to get on with some of the great work that it does.
As this will be the final time that I will be on my feet for this gigantic piece of legislation, I thank the Members from all sides who have contributed during the passage of this, frankly, huge piece of legislation. At every industry forum that I have done for the last six months, I have been asked the obligatory question, “When will the Energy Bill get Royal Assent?”. Whether it be the CCUS sector, the hydrogen sector or the smart meter sector, as well as the community energy sector, every stakeholder group in this area is keen to get this legislation on the statute book. I know the House had some concerns but in general the legislation has support from all sides, and I think everybody accepts that it will do great and noble things for the energy sector.
As well as Members of the House, I thank all the officials who have now spent a number of years working on this. There were several hundred of them so I cannot mention them all by name, but I particularly pick out Jeremy Allen and Jessica Lee, who have led the team fantastically over the last months and years. I am sure they will be lost without their little baby, as the Energy Bill becomes the Energy Act. They have done some great work, including on the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act and the Energy Prices Act. I hope noble Lords will join me in thanking them for all the good work they have done, in the finest traditions of the Civil Service, in helping us to navigate our way through these important pieces of legislation.
Israel/Gaza
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That this House takes note of the situation in Israel/Gaza.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the importance and timeliness of this debate is self-evident. The number of speakers is testament to not just the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House but to the deep insight, wisdom and expertise. I am sure that, over the next few hours, as we listen carefully to each and every contribution, we will hear differing perspectives; we will have differing insights; at times, we will have, I am sure, a divergence of views and opinions. But what defines an effective, strong, resilient and progressive democracy is its openness, its ability to debate in a reasoned and sharing manner, respecting contrarian opinion, and then move forward in the best interests. I know for a fact that noble Lords speaking today will do so from a degree of principled passion on a particular issue. I am sure that today’s debate will also inform the Government, who are navigating this crisis which, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said, in all my time as a Minister is perhaps—no, not perhaps; it is—the most testing and challenging issue that we face. I am sure that many will reflect that sentiment in their contributions.
I take us back to 7 October. It was a Saturday—Shabbat—and the evening before had changed the trajectory not just of Israel but of many commentators, reporters, Governments and perspectives, as well as the many within Israel whose lives would never be the same. The attacks in Israel on 7 October not only shocked a country, they shocked the world. As His Majesty’s Government have made clear repeatedly, the United Kingdom, at that time and today—I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords—stands with Israel, a nation in mourning.
I am a Muslim by faith, as all noble Lords know, and on hearing of the death of any person, the prayer we recite is:
“Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji-un”,
simply translated as “To God we belong and to God we return”. When we see the innocent lives taken that day, we pray for those souls. I know that people of all faiths and none were shocked by the inhumanity of the brutal murder of so many innocent people in Israel. Therefore, we should, irrespective of faith, community, belief and religion, condemn unequivocally the terror attacks committed by Hamas against Israel and, indeed, many international citizens. Simply put, these attacks were driven by hatred.
We are also clear—this is important, and I hope that during today’s debate it will echo from this Chamber—that it is Hamas, the proscribed terrorist organisation, that our focus is on. It is Hamas that is responsible for that violence, not the Palestinian people or the Palestinian Authority. It is Hamas that is responsible for those abhorrent acts of terror.
The ramifications of that attack continue to unfold, sadly and tragically, as I stand before your Lordships today. When we look at the sheer scale of the human cost, it is sobering. As I look behind me to noble Lords on my own Benches, and particularly towards the Bishops’ Benches—I am delighted that we are joined by voices today who will speak from a deep insight into the issues of what many of us of Abrahamic faiths term the Holy Land, which is called that for a reason—and then I look opposite me, to my side, to my right and left, and I know that all noble Lords are very much focused on not just that tragedy but the human cost that was suffered. In Israel itself, over 1,400 people were killed. When we reflect on the history of Israel in the last 75 years, we see that this was the most lethal attack against it.
There were some who drew comparisons with the shock and horrors of the Holocaust, yet that was then and this is now, with the brutality of an appalling act of terror. We should not for a moment be distracted. Again, as I look around, I remember the tragic events of 7/7 right here in the UK, as many noble Lords do. We can never allow terror attacks to disrupt the incredible diversity and strength of our nation, which is a united United Kingdom when it comes to issues of terrorism. I pay tribute to many noble Lords across this Chamber who have not only consistently raised their voices but come together in a voice of unity against terror. I hope —indeed, I believe this will be the case—that that voice of unity will again resonate from this Chamber today.
The attacks were both indiscriminate and unconscionable. Those missing come from over 40 countries, including the United Kingdom. I had a meeting just before I came into the Chamber, along with my dear and right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly. We were with some of the relatives of those who were killed or remain missing—being held hostage in Gaza. I thank them for sharing their important stories, but the significance of their testimonies, as the information is still being shared, also reflected that the youngest person being held hostage is as young as nine months and the eldest of those who shared their testimony about the people being held—the eldest in that incredible group of people who we met—is 93. The pain and unbearable torment they are suffering will, I am sure, stay with them, but it is also, rightly, reflected in the thinking of policymakers. We stand with Israel during its time of challenge and we are working with Israel to support the families who are suffering this pain.
While the picture is extremely bleak, I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in welcoming the release of two hostages in Gaza yesterday. But, as the Prime Minister made clear in his Statement in the other place yesterday, the UK will continue to do everything in its power, working with all our partners, to free those held hostage and to bring those British nationals home. I acknowledge the strong co-operation that we are receiving from key partners, including countries such as Egypt and Qatar, which are playing important roles in this respect.
Since that terror attack, a violent and vicious sequence of events has unfolded that continues to reverberate across the region and further afield. We have seen, as the Prime Minister said only yesterday, 4,000 Palestinian deaths in Gaza, and a growing and already challenging humanitarian catastrophe. Many people, right now, are likely to still be trapped under rubble. Let me be clear—and I hope I speak for every noble Lord, irrespective of whether they are Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or of no faith—we, together, mourn the loss of every innocent life, of every faith and nationality.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear Israel’s right to defend its borders and people, and to act against terrorism. In doing so, as I am sure noble Lords recognise, both he and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary have been engaged directly with Israel, as have I, urging it to take all possible precautions to minimise harm to civilians in Gaza.
I will come to the grave humanitarian situation and the UK response shortly, but first I want to focus on the British nationals caught up in this conflict. Supporting our nationals and providing support to their grieving families is a key priority. I assure noble Lords—many have asked—that diplomatic efforts are under way to free all the hostages; I have referred to a number of cases. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has great expertise; I have seen that working in many ways across the globe over several years. On this occasion again, we will leave no stone unturned in bringing our people back safely. We have facilitated flights for those British nationals wishing to leave Israel, bringing out more than 950 people. We are working with Egypt, Israel and other international partners to ensure that British nationals can leave Gaza safely via the Rafah crossing into Egypt. I can share with noble Lords this afternoon that we have now deployed a UK Border Force team in Egypt, working with our embassy, to help citizens cross as soon as they can. The safety of British nationals will remain our utmost priority and I urge all noble Lords, when they get inquiries or people seeking information, to ask those people to look at our continuously updated travel advice.
British nationals currently in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Gaza, should register their presence via the Foreign Office’s travel advice page. We will then be able to share important updates, including information to help them to leave the country. We will also continue to keep in close contact with British nationals in Gaza and update them on the latest status of the Rafah crossing.
Many noble Lords have said to me privately—it was noted in the repeat of the Statement by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal yesterday—that this tragic act of terror and the continuing situation in Gaza fuel further instability and violence across the region. The outbreak of protests in several cities reflects how strongly people feel about the conflict.
Before I set out the actions the UK is taking, I make it absolutely clear that we are not only acutely aware of the contagious nature of this conflict but acting in this respect. We are aware, for example, that violence in the West Bank is rising. This year has become the bloodiest for West Bank violence since UN records began in 2005. As I said earlier, and I am sure we will hear it repeated time and again in the debate today, all loss of civilian life is tragic, but it is also avoidable.
I turn to the specific action that the United Kingdom Government are taking. While support to British nationals remains our priority, and rightly so, there are, as the Prime Minister set out, three distinct areas where the UK is helping to shape wider events.
First, we are redoubling our work with the international community to prevent escalation in the region and further threats against Israel. As the Prime Minister has said, in Israel’s fight against Hamas, we are of course with Israel. But, importantly, hope and humanity must win out against the scourge of terrorism, aggression and hate. We will work to rescue our hostages, to deter further incursions and to support Israel as it seeks to do so from Hamas, and, importantly, to strengthen security for the longer term.
I turn to some of the assets we have deployed, because it is important that we clarify that position as well. We have deployed a significant package of support to the eastern Mediterranean, including two Royal Navy ships, RAF surveillance aircraft and a company of Royal Marines. We are bolstering our forces in Cyprus and across the region. However, I make it clear to your Lordships’ House that the Royal Navy ships and personnel are not being sent there to fight. We are there to support the humanitarian response and prevent the outbreak of a regional conflict.
Intensive diplomatic engagement is also ongoing since those attacks on 7 October, as I know personally as the Minister for the Middle East. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both visited Israel and, importantly, the wider region. They took with them a message of support for and solidarity with the whole region, in unification against terrorism and in doing all we can, with the different equities possessed by different countries, to avoid a wider regional conflict. They remain, as I do, in close daily contact with counterparts across the Middle East and beyond. Earlier today, for example, I had a very constructive call with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Kuwait. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to many of his peers on his travels, which have taken him to many parts of the Gulf and the Middle East.
Since the outbreak of the conflict, I have engaged with regional counterparts from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and the UN—all coming together to seek to prevent regional escalation, while also focused on the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Last Saturday, the Foreign Secretary and I attended the Cairo peace summit, at which we reiterated the need for us all to work together to prevent instability engulfing the region and claiming yet more lives. Whatever perspective different countries brought, all were focused on the importance of peace, security and stability in the region, and a collective effort towards, ultimately, a two-state solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security. Our partners in the region have welcomed our role and believe that we have a constructive and important role to play in preventing further escalation, and we will continue to do so.
We have also made it clear in these engagements that all precautions must be taken to minimise, limit and mitigate against harm to civilians in Gaza, and to allow safe and unhindered humanitarian access. It is imperative that the window for relocation remains open and, if civilians are asked to relocate, they do so voluntarily and safely. Yet the challenges remain immense.
Secondly, we are providing humanitarian aid directly to the Palestinian people. The opening of the Rafah crossing this weekend to allow vital humanitarian aid into Gaza is testament to the power of diplomacy. It may seem—and it is—a small symbol, but it shows the art of the possible. The opening of the Rafah crossing was no small feat and required a diplomatic push from many countries. So far, more than 50 trucks containing aid have now crossed the border, but I would be the first to say that it is not enough. It is imperative that this continues and increases substantially if it is to have the desired impact of saving the lives of Palestinians in Gaza.
We have been clear also that Hamas is a terrorist organisation which, as we have seen, neither speaks for nor acts in the interests of the Palestinian people. It does not stand for the future that Palestinians want or desire. The conflict is exacerbating a situation that is already dire: six out of 10 Gazans were in need of humanitarian assistance before Hamas attacked Israel. But now, a greater humanitarian crisis is unfolding before us.
On 16 October, the Prime Minister announced £10 million in humanitarian funding to help civilians in Gaza and, as noble Lords will have heard, my right honourable friend announced an additional £20 million yesterday, more than doubling our previous support to the Palestinian people. That funding will provide essential relief items, including food, water and emergency shelter, depending on needs on the ground. The uplift increases our aid commitment for the Occupied Palestinian Territories from £27 million to £57 million this year. This makes the UK one of the largest bilateral donors in this current humanitarian crisis.
I know that some noble Lords may express concern, as others have in the other place, but I assure them that all UK aid undergoes rigorous oversight, and multiple safeguards are in place to prevent UK funding from going to Hamas. Any UK assistance will be channelled through trusted partners, including key UN agencies, which have been playing an important role. As I said—I underline this important point—it is because of the strength of our partnership and relationship with Israel that we can make the case to ensure that it takes every possible precaution to minimise civilian casualties. As such, we welcome the commitment of the Israeli president, President Herzog, who has vowed that Israel’s armed forces will operate in accordance with international law.
However, we cannot equate the two: through our lens in this country, Hamas is, by definition, a terrorist organisation. We must have moral clarity when we approach these issues. Yes, Israel is defending its borders and citizens, but, as a state, our role, as a friend and partner, is to work with Israel on the importance of acting within international humanitarian law and of alleviating the suffering of innocent civilians.
Thirdly, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, we are working hard to sustain the long-term prospects of peace and stability in the region. The Prime Minister has spoken to the Israeli Prime Minister and the Palestinian president. The UK’s message has been clear: we must work together to chart a way through this particularly challenging and trying period for Israelis and Palestinians. The UK wants to see Israelis and Palestinians living safely and securely in peace. I have visited the region numerous times, and I know that many within Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories have that desire for peace and stability.
I reiterate what the Prime Minister said only yesterday: the United Kingdom and this Government remain committed to making progress towards a two-state solution, for which the need is more acute now than ever. The UK’s long-standing position has been clear: yes, we support a negotiated settlement, leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. I would go further: ultimately, as they are close neighbours, there will inevitably be an interdependency between people—that is an important vision to keep in mind. I accept that it may be difficult to look at that vision and opportunity right now, but we cannot allow terror and hate to win and to kill the prospects for this two-state solution and, importantly, for peace, security, normalisation and stability in the region.
As the Prime Minister also said yesterday, we must keep alive that vision of a better future against those who seek to destroy it. We cannot, at home or abroad, allow terrorism to divide us or to prevail—it cannot prevail.
We stand with Israel as it seeks to restore security to its borders, a country which was shocked to its core. As I said, that shock was not limited to Israel or to its people. It is a shock we all shared: the immediate shock of those innocent lives destroyed, the hostages taken, but also, as we have seen now, the terrible and continuing deeper suffering of the Palestinian people. Let us be clear, and many Israelis in Israel, that the Palestinian people are not the enemy: terrorists are, and the people who can be termed as such.
I assure noble Lords of my good offices and those of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and indeed across government. We will continue to work tirelessly on the four strands that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has laid out. First, we are supporting British nationals and their families affected by these events, both in Israel and Gaza. Secondly, we are working to prevent escalation in the region and further threats against Israel. Thirdly, we are providing humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people. Finally—probably one of the most challenging issues that we face—we are striving to sustain the long-term prospects of peace, stability and security in the region.
It sometimes takes a shock to focus minds. This was an attack of terror on an ally of the United Kingdom, and therefore it is right that the United Kingdom continues to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel at this important time in its history. However, we are at a crossroads. There is an opportunity here. As I said right at the start, I know that many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House possess incredible insight and wisdom and have experienced themselves the issues of mediation and conflict resolution. Therefore, I assure noble Lords, as I have already done with a number, that I seek their insights, not just today in your Lordships’ House but on how we can work together and focus on the equities we possess. Irrespective of whether that person is currently in Gaza, in the West Bank, or in Israel, the message that must go to them is one of hope. That hope means that hate will not prevail.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his analysis of this terrible situation we face. We are very fortunate to have him in the position he occupies in providing us with the leadership that we need.
It is hard not to be moved by the awful scenes of fleeing women and children in stricken Gaza that now seem such a daily event. However, I want to speak of something else. I fear that there is a dangerous myth that the horrendous activities of Hamas on 7 October were the entirely understandable actions of an oppressed people crushed under the boot of Israel. It is the myth that seems to allow some in our media to excuse unspeakable acts of terror as merely those of militants.
But Hamas is not the oppressed; it is, in fact, the oppressor of its own people. When it was formed in 1987, its founding charter was based firmly on the principle that Israel and the Jews must be destroyed and thrown out of the Middle East, from the river to the sea. In 2005, when Israel removed all its settlements with every Jew from Gaza, it did so in the belief that the huge number of greenhouses and agricultural equipment that they had left behind would allow the Palestinians to have a basis on which they could build a viable state. It even left them plans for a harbour and an airport, but Hamas immediately destroyed the vacated houses and greenhouses and began to remove the representatives of its rival faction, Fatah—some, it threw off their rooftops to make the point.
Since 2005, Hamas has engaged in a war, sending an estimated 25,000 rockets into Israel. Although Hamas is Sunni, it shares its ideology with Shia Iran. Hamas has never wavered from its position. It is why it has refused to install a water desalination plant because it would use Israeli technology and why it has bombed the electricity generator at Ashdod that provides it with electricity, so that it can show the world how terrible Israel is to it.
Hamas has shown that it has little concern for its own oppressed Palestinian people. Far from protecting them, it does not allow them to enter the security of its myriad tunnels; it has not allowed its fellow citizens access to the hoard of fuel and food it has stockpiled; and it has prevented its own hospitals receiving medical supplies it has stored away. There is evidence of all that. Hamas has done all it can to prevent Palestinians from leaving the northern parts of Gaza so that it can callously use them as human shields while some of its leaders are living it up in Beirut and Qatar.
This is not a popular uprising of an oppressed people; it is the murderous activities of a malign organisation that cares little for the suffering of its own people as it pursues its aims, and it should be called out as such. For the BBC and, I fear, the Financial Times to persist in calling it a militant organisation is shameful and dangerous, as it feeds into the growing anti-Zionism—that anti-Semitism by another name—that we begin to see on our streets. They should think carefully about how their messages are taken.
If there is any good for Israel and the Palestinians that can come out of this horror story—and we must try at least to find something good—it can come only when the capacity of Hamas to create harm is removed. We will not get rid of the Hamas ideology by military means—it will pop up somewhere else. However, if it no longer has the capacity to create havoc in Gaza and against Israel, we might have an opportunity for something better.
This comes with the potential change of leadership in both Israel and Palestine. Neither leader has been capable of making any realistic steps towards a just solution to their differences. Perhaps with new leadership on both sides, and with the rest of the world woken up to the serious dangers to world peace of a fraught Middle East, we might see more progress towards what I believe is the only solution offering any hope—a two-state solution. With increasing pressure from the United States, Europe and the UK, together with an increasingly involved set of Abraham accord countries—extending to Saudi Arabia, I hope—perhaps we could see some progress. But none of that can even begin to happen while Hamas remains in power in Gaza. For the sake of the Palestinians as well as Israel, it should be removed, and we in the West should, in our own interests, be supporting that aim.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest: I am a patron of CABU, the Council for Arab-British Understanding.
Before addressing my general remarks, I want to make two imperatives. The first is that there is no place for anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom in either private or public life, and we should call it out whenever we see instances of it. The second imperative is the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages.
I begin with a definition and, to some extent, pick up a point made a moment or two ago. Hamas is proscribed as a terror organisation, and by both its affiliation and conduct it justifies that judgment. We know that its members carried out acts of terrorism in Israel, only days ago. By its membership in the first instance and by its conduct, how else would you describe Hamas other than as terrorists? Its members are a lot more than militants, and that should be recognised universally in this country. Hamas killed at will. It took hostages who included—would you believe it?—the sick, the pregnant, children and the aged. The impact of its actions is global, because the Jewish family is not confined to Israel, as we know from the reactions from around the world.
The actions of Hamas were vicious and illegal, and Israel, by law, has the right to respond in defence of its citizens and territory. However, as was said by the Minister in his powerful opening, that response must be proportionate and openly seen to be targeting Hamas and to avoid civilians in Gaza. It is perhaps a more sensitive point, but I judge that any standing in the way of the supply of food, water and medicine when it is so obviously required would be seen as a challenge if not a breach of that proportionate principle.
It has been asked by some why Israel should be required to behave in a more restricted manner than Hamas. It is not about fairness; we gave up an eye for an eye long ago. These are the duties incumbent on democratic countries which claim—and in this case are entitled to—to honour humanitarian law.
However, civilian casualties are in their thousands on both sides—casualties which will be engraved on the history of Palestine and Israel. It need not have been this way. President Clinton brokered a deal between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. Promises were made, agreements were signed and hands were shaken, but it came to nothing. Arafat resiled from the agreement and, remarkably, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a settler. The mantra that has been repeated down the ages has been that of the two-state solution. Surely neither Israel nor Palestine can ever again tolerate such bloodshed as they have tolerated in the last few weeks.
There is a crisis, but out of a crisis often comes opportunity. I am pleased to see that, right from the beginning, our Prime Minister has majored on the two-state solution. Let us be frank: to take that further there will be difficulties on both sides. For the Palestinians, there are anxieties about the illegal settlements and the status of Jerusalem. For the Israelis, there is the justified anxiety about their security and the continued challenge to it. There is no point in turning to the Balfour Declaration. It is of no use, not least because it is now interpreted by what its reader wants it to mean.
There can be answers to these apprehensions on the part of Israel and the Palestinians. For example, on the issue of security, Israel could be given security guarantees by members of the international community. For the Palestinians, there could be an end to the expansion of the settlement.
I leave your Lordships with this thought. What could be a better memorial for the children whose lives have been blighted, and in many cases lost, than an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians which brings an end to the strife which it has caused?
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his eloquent and powerful opening speech. In it, he set out the complexity of the situation that is being faced. One of the great dangers of such complexity is that we seek to find simple answers and there are none.
In a recent trip—I got back on Sunday—to Jerusalem, meeting large numbers from both sides, it was perfectly obvious that there were a number of factors that we need to bear in mind. One was the raised prestige of the United Kingdom, owing to its solid support; tribute is owing to the Foreign Office, to the Foreign Secretary, to the Ministers with him, and to the Prime Minister for his determination and courage. Tribute is also owed to the leader of the Opposition, who has set such a clear example of cross-party support.
Secondly, the innumerable deaths on 7 October and the taking of over 200 hostages have created a situation of trauma in Israel that is hard to exaggerate. I am very glad to hear that the Foreign Office has been meeting with relatives. On Sunday morning, I spent time with families who had lost eight members of their family; they talked about the first pogrom on Israeli territory and their absolute shock. I spoke with a family whose son had been killed on 7 October—a British-Israeli soldier called Yosef. He had been married—and I spoke with his wife at length—for one year and three days. He gave his life against overwhelming odds, as wave after wave of terrorists sought to kill people in one of the kibbutzes. I wonder whether the Government are considering—given that he was a British citizen—what official recognition of his supreme courage can be offered. As well as that, there was—although huge anger—an absence of hate from those families. That dignity that they are showing is the first ray of light to which I will refer in this speech, in a situation of almost unredeemed darkness. Are the Government working to ensure not only that every effort—as they have already said—is being given to negotiating the release of the hostages but that it is one effort and not a disparate set of efforts, which would reduce its effectiveness?
From there, on Friday evening and Saturday, I saw the religious leaders—the Christian leaders of the Holy Land. Two or three things were visible. First, they literally sat shoulder to shoulder, on the day after the Al-Ahli destruction, with the extraordinary Anglican Archbishop Hosam Naoum—it is an Anglican hospital —and surrounded him with their support as he spoke of the need for peace and reconciliation, with the knowledge of his friends who had died. The hospital, which I visited in 2019 and opened a section of, and which has been so badly damaged—that visible sign of unity—is a second ray of light. Will the Government consider supporting that hospital in its rebuilding—financially, not just with words?
Will they also make it clear that the Christian community is essential to the Holy Land, for the other great message I got is that they believe this may be the end of their existence, after 2,000 years? They are caught between the upper and the nether millstone.
That brings us to the Palestinians in the West Bank. The Minister made absolutely clear his horror at the huge number—over 74 when I heard on Saturday from their representatives—murdered, almost entirely unarmed, almost entirely by settlers in illegal settlements in Area C. That strengthens Hamas and weakens the Palestinian Authority. Can that be in the interests of a long-term peace?
Fourthly, we turn to that question of the objectives of the war. The hopes of peace and reconciliation are set not only after a military victory but by how that victory is achieved. The more heavy the casualties, the less chance there is of renewed peace, and Gaza has gone from level to level of violence over the last 15 years. War conducted with that aim is not fair.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg—or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Campbell; both spoke so eloquently—said quite rightly that this is not a question of fairness. But there is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas. The latter is a terrorist organisation; the former is a legitimate state whose citizens since 1945 have written many of the laws of war. They know how to do this. May they be encouraged, and continue to be encouraged, by Governments around the world, by the success of David Satterfield—President Biden’s brilliant envoy—and by pressure from our Government and others, which has opened the way for more than 50 trucks to go into Gaza. That is a huge success.
My final point, though, is about the innocent sufferers. I visited two institutions on Saturday morning. One was a hospital linked to Al-Ahli, the other the Princess Basma school, 30% of whose members are deeply disabled children. The hospital cannot get children out of Gaza for chemotherapy, let alone for treatment of the wounds they have received. It cannot get children out. Can there be a corridor of sanctuary, at least on a temporary basis, to enable them to get the treatment without which they will die very rapidly? It is difficult. The call for a formal ceasefire is probably beyond hope, but can there be that humanitarian action? Can the children with autism and other extreme disabilities be allowed to come out so that they can attend school and not be in the midst of a war? What that does to them is beyond imagination.
I am well over my time; please excuse me. I want to say that the work done by our Government has been remarkable. It continues to be, but the international community must not again act disparately, with a series of Heads of State and other politicians emerging on the scene, sometimes for their own reasons. It must be a united effort with the United Nations and the ICRC. The United Nations has lost over 50 people, killed in the last two and a half weeks in Gaza. May we pay tribute to those who are taking such risks, sacrificing their lives for the future, and continue to hope that these two rays of light, of unity and of dignity, seen on both sides, may lead to peace and reconciliation before too long.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I listened with deep appreciation and gratitude to the most reverend Primate speaking out of his immediate experience in the area.
When I first heard about the horrific massacre on 7 October, in which more than 1,400 women, men, children and babies were shot to pieces—the worst day in Israel’s history—a verse from the book of Jeremiah came to mind, one quoted in the New Testament in relation to Herod’s slaughter of the innocents:
“In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not”.
Now, with perhaps 5,000 killed in Gaza, many of them women and children, there are more who are weeping, who will not be comforted, because they are not.
As someone who is conscious of the horrific history of Christian anti-Judaism, which morphed into anti-Semitism in the 19th century, I believe that the Christian churches have a special responsibility to care about the safety of |Israel, where the Jewish people, after centuries of persecution might at last be safe. Their safety should be our concern. It was good to hear from His Majesty’s Government and all the speakers on the importance of the safety and security of Israel at this time.
At the same time, we feel close to our Christian sisters and brothers in Gaza and the West Bank, where in this year in the West Bank so far 200 Palestinians and 30 Israelis have been killed. The prayer of an Arab Christian resonates with many of us:
“Pray not for Arab or Jew,
for Palestinian or Israeli,
but pray rather for ourselves,
that we might not divide them in our prayers
but keep them both together in our hearts”.
In 1962, I had the privilege of spending a term studying in Jerusalem. 1962 was the time of the Cold War, which I could not see ending in my lifetime, but in 1989 the Berlin Wall came down. It was the time of apartheid, which I did not see ending without massive bloodshed, but in 1994 Nelson Mandela was peacefully elected President. However, in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza things are much worse now than they were in 1962. Where has the will for peace gone? Since 2014, people have talked so often of a two-state solution being dead, but what is the alternative? It was good to hear from the Minister, once again, a vision of that two-state solution.
One group of people in whom the will to peace strongly resides are members of the Parents Circle – Families Forum, who I am sure the most reverend Primate will have met. This is made up of family members of those killed in recent conflicts: mothers of Israeli soldiers and mothers of Palestinians teenagers. Created in 1995, it now has more than 600 bereaved members joined together in their shared grief and shared commitment to reconciliation. When will their will for peace be translated into political terms?
Our hope must be not only that the present conflict can be contained and stopped but that a new stronger will for peace will emerge in the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. In the civil war in this country in the 17th century, Sir Robert Shirley erected a church at Staunton Harold. A monument to him on that church reads:
“whose singular praise it is to have done the best things in ye worst times and hoped them in the most callamitous”.
In these worst and most calamitous times, the best thing we can hope for and work for is the recovery of a serious will for peace in the leadership on all sides, with pressure from the international community to bring it about. I very much hope that even now, as Hamas —rightly labelled a terrorist organisation—is rendered incapable of carrying out further attacks, His Majesty’s Government are giving thought to what lies beyond—the endgame not only about the governance of Gaza after Hamas has been rendered incapable of carrying out further attacks. It was good to hear that there is still a vision there, but are we going to get new leadership among the Palestinians and in Israel, and pressure from the international community to bring it about?
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege, albeit a rather chastening privilege, to follow the noble and right reverend Lord and all who have spoken so eloquently in this debate. I echo what has been said about the terrible events of 7 October. Over the last few days, I have been listening to the incredibly moving testimony of the families of some of those murdered and some of those taken hostage. I urge His Majesty’s Government, and particularly those organisations, countries and Governments that have relationships with Hamas—the humanitarian organisations that have worked in Gaza for years and the Government of Qatar who host the political leadership of Hamas—to put as much pressure as they can on Hamas to release all the hostages, not two by two.
I also express my real sympathy with the families of the civilian population of Gaza who have lost their lives, for all human life is precious. But the two situations are not equivalent. There is no equivalence between the deliberate murder, beheading and kidnapping that took place on 7 October and what is happening in Gaza. The victims on 7 October were not being used as human shields. The inhabitants of the kibbutzim, many of whom had devoted all their lives to the pursuit of peace, were not harbouring units of the Israel Defense Forces. The IDF is not targeting civilians, but in war, which this has now become, civilian casualties are sadly inevitable. That is one of the dreadful consequences of all war. The terrible truth is that Hamas has displayed no interest in minimising those casualties.
The outcome of the present hostilities is, to put it mildly, uncertain. It is impossible to know what the Middle East will look like when the fighting dies down, as one day it must. But even in the midst of the most terrible darkness, it is human instinct to look for hope. Like those who have spoken before me, I will spend a minute or two talking about what might come later—what really must come if we are to have any chance of a lasting peace in part of the world that gave birth to some of the most noble aspirations and ideals in human history. I speak with humility; it is easy to pontificate when you are thousands of miles away, safe in the relative security of the environment which we are privileged to enjoy.
I am a patron of an organisation called the Abraham Initiatives, which is not to be confused with the Abraham accords, which I also welcome and support. The Abraham Initiatives exists to promote trust and good relations between the Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel—the only place where Jews and Arabs live together, often side by side. It is carrying out important work at the moment in these very fraught circumstances to calm tensions between the two communities. If trust can be fostered between them, it could have positive repercussions elsewhere—in the West Bank and even perhaps one day in Gaza.
While I am on the topic, may I digress for a moment to nail the myth—the trope—that Israel is, in some undefined way, an apartheid state? A Muslim Arab judge sits on Israel’s Supreme Court. I have an Arab friend who was Deputy Speaker in the last Knesset. Half the Israeli football team are Arabs. These are not the hallmarks of an apartheid state.
It is not enough. If a lasting peace is to be secured, as our Prime Minister and my noble friend have said, there has to be a two-state solution. Of course, it cannot happen now. It was not going to happen before 7 October, because Israel has a Prime Minister who has shown no interest in a two-state solution, and, alas, the Palestinian Authority is led by those who lack the authority and respect of their own people, which is essential if an agreement is to be made to stick. We need an Israeli Prime Minister who believes in a two-state solution—we may get one before too long—and we need a Palestinian leader with the authority to make an agreement; we need a Palestinian Mandela.
There will be many who dismiss this as fantasy. It may be, but we must dare to hope. As we contemplate the bleak darkness of the current conflict, let us pray that one day we will see what so many crave—a lasting peace in the Holy Land.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to make a few cardinal points emerging from what has been and continues to be a period of such horror and emotion.
Unfortunately, I have to start with the BBC. I have been a lifelong supporter and admirer of the BBC around the world, and when I have been abroad I have always been vociferous about it. In the last couple of weeks, I have been both ashamed of it and angry at it. Saying that Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation was a weasel-worded way of getting out of the fact that they were not going to call it terrorist at all. This was shameful.
The BBC has behaved very badly, as opposed to our British politicians. I know the Leader of the Opposition better than some of the others. He has dealt with the situation absolutely correctly, as have His Majesty’s Government, without exception, including the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. We should be grateful for that. I know that the people of Israel appreciate it, and I hope the Palestinians do too. The British Government have acted as I expected them to behave.
I have also been struck by the great rewriting of history in a lot of the comment coming across in the media. It is not a question of opinion, but of historical accuracy. I keep hearing mentioned that 1948 was an example of how Palestinian Arabs were lured away from their homes with promises that they could return, but they were never allowed back. The history books tell us what happened in 1948. Before 1948, when Britain did not want to continue its mandate for Palestine and returned it, the UN set up a commission that came back with a resolution for two states—something we would all like to see now. Neither the Jewish Agency nor the Arab League liked the division into the two states, but the Jewish Agency accepted it and the Arab League did not. It is beyond historical doubt that the members of the Arab League, the big powers of the time that included Syria, Egypt, Transjordan and Lebanon, rejected it. Incidentally, I have never seen any evidence that the Palestinians were ever asked about it.
Anyway, the Arab League said no, and the powers said to the Palestinians, “Don’t worry, because our armies will go in. If there is any Jewish state, that will disappear, and you can have the lot”. Of course, we now know that that is not what happened. History is important as long as it is accurate. That particular story is being used a lot now and it ought to be contradicted.
Another rewriting of history is what happened in 1967. The first time I set foot in Gaza was in August 1967 and it was a hellhole; it was absolutely awful. I had never been in a place like that before. Israel had only been there for a couple of weeks. Egypt kept the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza in those conditions from 1948 to 1967 as a political ploy, a political point, to use against Israel.
The other thing I have been hit with is the way in which anti-Zionism has become a way of being anti-Semitic without appearing to be anti-Semitic. There is no doubt in my mind that anti-Semitic is what it is. Not all Jews are Zionists; we know that. Not all Zionists are Jewish, as a very nice little museum in Jerusalem shows. It shows people who have been part of the Zionist movement who are not Jewish. It is important to stop these misshapen views of history, which only feed prejudice.
A former Chief Rabbi said about anti-Semitism that, in the Middle Ages, Jews were attacked because of religion. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Jews were attacked because of race. Now, he said, they are being attacked because of their state. I think people need to take a cool look at what is being said, how it is being said and who is saying it.
Finally, I ask the Minister: why, oh why, when the fingerprints of Iran are all over the horrible event on 7 October, have we not yet proscribed the IRGC?
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks, which I thought were very good. I declare my interest as president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel.
It may be said many times this evening, but it needs to be said again: that, on October 7, evil men crossed the border between Gaza and Israel and murdered young partygoers at a peace concert in the desert. They murdered whole families—men, women children and babies—at an Israeli kibbutz. About 1,400 Jews were slaughtered or taken as hostages. As the Minister said, 7,600 rockets were falling on Israel from Gaza. But, in the last two hours, there has been a big increase in the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel.
The fear and devastation from this firepower fails to be mentioned. This was evil in capital letters. I am reminded of the saying that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that the good do nothing. Israel has responded with the aim of eradicating Hamas, as containment did not and will not work. I have previously reminded this House of my conversation with a member of Fatah. When I asked what Israel could offer Hamas, his reply was that they only want two things: the complete eradication of Israel and the removal of all Jews. How can anyone deal with an organisation with those evil aims?
The complication is that these evil men use the people of Gaza as human shields, hiding their command and rocket launchers among the civilian population. Observers fail to recognise that the real enemy of the people of Gaza is Hamas, which kills or maims everything in its path. What outsiders fail to recognise is that these evil men are also liars. A hospital was bombed, as has been mentioned. Immediately, Hamas blamed Israel. The media repeated these lies only for the damage to be found to have been caused by a failed rocket launched by Islamic Jihad. By that time, the lie had been gleefully accepted by a public only too willing to believe the perfidy of Israel. Meanwhile, the actions of these evil men are celebrated and applauded at marches and meetings in the UK. These are not marches for peace but marches applauding death squads. Shame on all those who took part.
Between 7 and 23 October, over 600 anti-Semitic incidents were reported—not in Israel but in the UK. I remind the House that there were Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. Over 800,000 fled from Arab countries; from Iraq alone it was 135,000; from Algeria it was 140,000; from Tunisia it was 105,000— I could go on. Between 1948 and 1972, these Jews were forced to relocate and make new lives for themselves—mainly in Israel. Can one be surprised that they and others say, “Never again”?
Meanwhile, because of the actions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, there is a humanitarian crisis for the people of Gaza, who are between a rock and a hard place. There needs to be a temporary cessation of hostilities to enable food, water and fuel to get through. The challenge is how to supply without the supplies being taken for Hamas’s own use or sold at a profit by it; that is what it does. All relief must get to the people and not to the instigators of the tragedy. I need to ask the Minister: what is the plan? Supplies can and will come through the border with Egypt, and they have started to dribble through. No one seems to mention this: could it be possible also to supply from the sea—Gaza does have a seaboard—with safeguards as to what is supplied and to whom it goes?
Finally, thought must be given as to how Gaza will be managed and controlled after Hamas has—we hope—been routed. Neither Egypt nor Israel wants to occupy Gaza. Both have tried it and they do not want to repeat an occupation. Is the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, able to take control of Gaza? Well, not on past performance, so great minds must devise a management that allows the people of Gaza to thrive and prosper. It is in Israel’s and Palestine’s interests to foster an economically vibrant neighbour, so that they can live in peace and prosperity. More efforts must be made to get a two-state solution.
Could the Minister confirm that we will continue as a nation to press Qatar? It is the only influence that we seem to have on Hamas to be more reasonable, to release the hostages, and to provide a viable security for Israel and the region.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I thank those in this House who have extended support, sympathy and understanding during these past two terrible weeks. I particularly appreciate the mention by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury of my young relative Yosef Guedalia, whose relatives he met in Israel last week and whose great-grandparents suffered in the Holocaust.
My theme today is that the root of the problem is education. The creation of Israel and the displacement of population is and was nothing out of the ordinary in the 20th century. There was the partition of India and Pakistan because Muslims and Hindus could not co-exist, which created at least 14 million displaced persons and 1 million deaths. A million Irish entered the UK; hundreds of thousands of Poles had to settle elsewhere; 40% of Greek Cypriots were displaced by the Turkish invasion; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from most countries in the Middle East, leaving no one of the Jewish faith in the countries from which they were expelled, even though 2 million Arabs are living in Israel. All the many displacements and refugees that I have referred to were settled, with one exception. It is not because a state of Palestine has been denied—that has been offered and rejected four times—but because the Islamists cannot accept having any Jews living in the Middle East at all.
The cure for these problems lies in the Middle East. Will the Minister ask Qatar to continue its benevolent intervention? Will he encourage the countries of the Middle East to continue, not abandon, the Abraham accords? Will he ask the many countries in the Middle East where Palestinian refugees are living in dire conditions —most notably Lebanon, Syria and Egypt—to settle them? Why should there be refugee camps 50 years after they arrived there? They should be given citizenship and allowed to work and have an education, as they are not in Lebanon. That would not rule out their return to a state of Palestine one day, but they should not be kept in a state of dejection as human pawns.
I come to a further aspect of education. The Minister said of the Holocaust, “That was then and this is now”, but that is not the case. There is a straight line from one to the other. Holocaust education and memorialising has almost wholly missed the mark. It is fruitless to cast the Holocaust as a self-contained episode in the past. The learning centre—such a misnomer—planned for Westminster would have visitors believe that it was all the Nazis, it was all in the past, it was just a question of not hating and not being a bystander, and that here in the UK it is clear that democracy protects against genocide. That is simply not true. The erection of barriers around the Berlin memorial is a portent of things to come. The hatred and anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust are bubbling under again today, and once again there is too much apathy and failure to recognise the old hatred. As David Baddiel said, “Jews don’t count” when it comes to stamping out today’s hatred and racism.
I am sorry to say that some of the worst is in our universities. I hear all the time of sad episodes: in Portsmouth an academic is excusing Hamas; a recent NUS report on anti-Semitism in universities is all too sadly being borne out today; there are rampages around universities; there is a motion at the University and College Union calling for “intifada until victory”; and Cambridge and UCL are calling for a mass uprising against Israel. These young people had Holocaust education. I call on the Government to start an overhaul of that education. It should be Jewish history education, setting the Holocaust in context, as the late lamented Lord Sacks called for. Young people should be taught what happened before the Holocaust, of the Jewish contribution to civilisation and what happened afterwards, culminating in the establishment of Israel. We have a Black History Month; why can we not have a Jewish history month, or at least a curriculum?
Finally, as others have said, Iran is behind all of this. It has created its axis of resistance. The Government should stop appeasing Iran, and make sure that it gets no closer to its nuclear ambitions and that sanctions are applied. They should call on the rest of the countries in the Middle East to follow that lead—to be humanitarian towards Gaza and to work for peace and the end of this conflict. It lies in the countries of the Middle East.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and very good friend the Minister for his powerful opening speech. I also thank my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their extraordinarily hard work these past few days. The Prime Minister referred in his Statement yesterday to the
“quiet and dogged diplomacy that recognises the hard realities on the ground and delivers help now”. [Official Report, Commons, 23/10/23; col. 592.]
It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to follow such exceptional speeches.
The world was rightly horrified by the barbarity—the killings, injuries and kidnapping—which Israel suffered at the hands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Saturday 7 October. I express my deepest condolences to my Jewish friends and colleagues and to the Israelis I have come to know over the years, many of whom have been directly affected. I condemn those unforgiveable actions. Yet the price of those atrocities cannot be the deaths of thousands of other innocent children, women and men. What is happening in Gaza is horrific and cannot continue. My heart is heavy for their loss and for my many Palestinian friends who mourn their loved ones.
I declare my interests as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Jordan, Kuwait and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, president of the Palestine British Business Council and president of Medical Aid for Palestinians. MAP is one of the last international agencies still operating in Gaza. When this all began, over 18 days ago, we literally opened our cupboards and emptied our bank accounts to provide essential medical supplies and much-needed drugs to treat the injured and the dying. In terrifying circumstances, our colleagues on the ground are working until they are exhausted, including some who have carried on in the full knowledge that their homes have been bombed and their loved ones are dead. They are heroes, and I pay tribute to them all and to all who put their lives in danger for others.
I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to increase aid and the first trucks to enter Gaza with crucial supplies. But as the Prime Minister said yesterday and my noble friend the Minister said today, it is not enough. I hope that the promises made by the United States and Israel of a continued flow of aid into Gaza will be of the quantity needed to sustain and support life. And Gaza needs fuel, not least to keep the hospitals going. As we speak, there are 130 babies in incubators whose lives are in imminent danger if fuel does not reach the hospitals soon. As of this morning, there is only around 48 hours of fuel left. Too many babies and children on both sides have already died.
As aid enters Gaza, it is imperative that the hostages are released. I had tears in my eyes this morning witnessing the amazing spirit of Yocheved Lifschitz, shaking the hand of her captor as she was released. I pray for the safe return of all those still held captive. I also pray for the safe passage of British citizens trapped in Gaza. My son’s friend from childhood is one of them, and I was delighted to hear the encouraging news on this from my noble friend the Minister.
While all eyes have been on Gaza, there has been a significant clampdown on the movement of people and goods in the West Bank. Normal life—I use that term advisedly—is on hold. The West Bank is not operating properly; there are challenges of movement for fast-moving consumer goods, often with settler violence along the way. Towns are locked down and it is almost impossible to get medical supplies to where they are urgently needed.
To compound this, the date harvest is in full swing and the olive harvest is imminent. Both are vital for the Palestinian economy, yet farmers cannot get to the towns and cities, and shipments of Palestinian goods out of the country are on complete hold. Soon, producers are going to be unable to fulfil their orders to the UK and worldwide. I ask my noble friend the Minister what steps we and the international community are taking to ensure the sustainability of the Palestinian economy, which is such a vital component of peace.
Last week, in his important and valued visit to the Middle East, the Prime Minister visited the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—the birthplace of the 2002 Arab peace initiative, a visionary plan of the late King, His Majesty King Abdullah, which offered Israel peace with the whole Arab world but also offered hope for the Palestinian people. Since then, 21 difficult years have passed, and I recognise that other avenues to peace have been explored. Yesterday, the Prime Minister acknowledged the work of the Abraham accords and normalisation, and how they can bolster wider efforts. We should all applaud genuine steps to a more peaceful, prosperous world, but the sad truth is that you cannot normalise an abnormal situation and any lasting path to peace must give the Palestinians a stake in their future.
That is why the Prime Minister was absolutely right when he spoke of the need to invest more deeply in regional stability and in the two-state solution. The two go hand in hand. Peace will never come to the region while Palestinians live under occupation, unable to control their own lives, to trade or travel easily, and to live with dignity; neither will Israelis be able to live safely and without fear.
I had always hoped that the path to peace would come through the Arab peace initiative—that one day it might have been picked up, dusted down and given new purpose. Perhaps it still can be, or something similar. But whatever the vehicle, I make a plea to the Government and to the wider international community to rededicate their efforts to working with our Arab and Israeli friends to bring an end to this horror. I ask them not to stop until a just and enduring settlement is reached, which sees the two states that we all long for living side by side in peace, prosperity and friendship. Let that be the legacy of this unspeakable tragedy.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, in the midst of the awful complexity of this war, we should constantly remind ourselves and others that it is not a war between Jew and Muslim. It is not even a war between Israeli and Palestinian. It is a war between the State of Israel and a terrorist group called Hamas, the former fighting for its very existence and the latter fighting to completely eradicate the former. That is the real dividing line between those sides. Whatever our misgivings about the political track record of recent Israeli Governments—and I have many—none of them excuses the terrible activities of Hamas, which have been commented on by everyone. I will not elaborate upon them but, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, the slaughter of the innocents sums it up.
It has been called evil beyond imagination but it is not unimaginable; in fact, we have all seen it before. It fits the established pattern set by al-Qaeda, Islamic State, al-Shabaab and others. It arises primarily from Islamist ideology and practice, a toxic mix of perverted Islam, fascism and cruelty. That is why Arab leaders such as Mahmoud Abbas or Saudi’s Prince Turki condemn Hamas’s terrorism, stressing that Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people; it represents that Islamist ideology. Against this evil, Israel has the right to defend itself. That is not the question; the question is how it does that.
All of us, including the Israeli Government, should ponder deeply on this, because while I completely understand the anger, grief and frustration felt by the Israelis, I also know that anger and frustration are rarely drivers of good strategy. When we ponder what might happen, we should brace ourselves, because there is more awful, horrific death to come. Even without a ground war, there will be more innocent civilian casualties. I have some familiarity with what is called targeted precision bombing—let me tell your Lordships that in the fog, friction and pace of war, targeted precision bombing will not be precise. There will be perhaps thousands more civilians killed in Gaza: collateral damage, in the euphemism. Hamas, for its part, will not care about that —indiscriminate bombing is its trademark, and as far as the people of Gaza are concerned that is not a platform for Hamas but a shield behind which it can hide.
If there is a ground war, there will be still more civilian deaths. Gaza is already a humanitarian emergency, without the medicines and food it needs; just imagine if there is a simultaneous ground war with that emergency going on. Inevitably, there will be more Israeli military deaths. The IDF is brave, skilled, well equipped and technically proficient, but in the congested, rubble-strewn debris of Gaza, a ground war is not likely to lend itself to heavy armour or technical superiority. It will be infantry-led: boots on the ground. Never forget that in the last month of World War II, in the debris of Berlin the Red Army lost 80,000 men and suffered 300,000 casualties. I do not say this in order to sit with the ease that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, mentioned, all those miles away, because I do not understand or know the tactics and operations the Israelis might decide upon, but I alert your Lordships to the awful possibilities that arise.
There are also grave questions—what follows invasion? What constitutes success? What is the exit plan? We have found that, compared with getting out, getting in is very easy indeed. Getting out is the difficult part. Finally, after the final victory what is the political alternative on offer? In the absence of that political alternative—and I, like the Minister, believe that it is a two-state solution—violence will surely return. It may not be tomorrow or next year, but it will come back. If, as is said, nature abhors a vacuum, terrorism and violence do not: they love a vacuum. These are the crucial questions that have to be addressed, even in the midst of the awful situation we find ourselves in at present. None of them reduces Israel’s right to self-defence or justice; it deserves both of those. None of them will diminish Israel’s determination, I am sure, but they all suggest that that determination should be tempered, above all, by wisdom.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I draw to the House’s attention that I am the honorary president of Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine. I feel it is relevant to say that I was brought up as a Muslim, with a section of my family originating from the eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus and north Africa. I have Jewish cousins. So I have a strong connection to the region that I am about to talk about. I feel privileged to be able to take part in this very important debate. I thank the Minister for his very powerful introduction, and I agree with every word he said.
The events of 7 October triggered shock and revulsion. The murder of innocent civilians by Hamas has rightly been condemned internationally. I extend my sincere sympathies to all those here in the UK and elsewhere affected personally by this atrocity. I also condemn the rising anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in our country as a result of what has happened in the Middle East.
Israel and Palestine is a land of two people locked in a 75-year conflict, not one that began on 7 October. Although we knew that a response from Israel was inevitable and necessary, for the majority of those of us who have campaigned for years for a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis, the disproportionate response has further escalated fear and tensions for both populations—Israelis and Palestinians.
Also deeply worrying are some of the statements and rhetoric that have come out of the Netanyahu Government. He said:
“We are going to change the Middle East”.
We do not know what that means. We know that for 16 years Israel has placed 2.1 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip under an illegal sea, land and air blockade, restricting residents’ movements and limiting their access to electricity and clean water. Now these very civilians, who cannot escape, are facing a humanitarian catastrophe, as others have pointed out.
The Israeli Defence Minister called on 9 October for a “complete siege”. He said:
“There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed … We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly”.
This is a dehumanising and unfortunate statement. It was interpreted as inflicting collective punishment on innocent civilians who bear no responsibility for Hamas’s atrocities. Yet an Israeli spokesperson said that Israel had no responsibility to the people of Gaza. Well, yes, it does. The UN is clear: the Gaza Strip continues to be occupied by Israel, and under international law the occupying power has responsibility for looking after the civilian population under its occupation. So when food, water and medical supplies are cut off, it has a responsibility to restore them. I ask the Minister: what efforts are the Government making to ensure that these essential supplies are restored? Children are dying of dehydration and lack of medical supplies. Malnutrition is now becoming obvious among babies and children. Palestinian civilians have been paying a very heavy price for the actions of Hamas. They are not the enemy.
Innocent Palestinians in Gaza have been relentlessly bombed and killed. Nothing, it seems, has been off limits: entire residential areas; hospitals—22 medical facilities so far; schools; mosques; churches, including a 12th century church, killing Palestinian Christians and Muslims who had taken refuge there. It is inconceivable that Hamas was hiding in that church.
With almost 5,000 Palestinians reported killed in 15 days of indiscriminate attacks and relentless bombardment of the besieged people there, thousands have been injured and 1 million people have been left homeless. This is so distressing: 100 children a day are dying. In two weeks, Israel has killed with its bombardment three times as many children as Russia did in Ukraine in two years.
This is not inevitable. We should be making every effort to secure a ceasefire before the death toll increases. What is considered an unacceptable death toll before our Government and the American Government call for a ceasefire? Is it 10,000? Is it 20,000? We cannot stand by, losing our humanity and decency. We cannot reply with the barbarity of Hamas and we cannot do nothing. Millions of people around the world are watching in horror and growing outrage, and protests are ensuing.
I watched numerous family members of those Israelis whose loved ones were killed or taken hostage by Hamas. Despite unimaginable grief, they have been calling for an end to the bloodshed of civilians. These brave and courageous voices are calling on their Government to do everything possible to free their families. There are reports that Mr Netanyahu has not even met the families —I do not know whether that is true, but it must be painful for them to be ignored.
Multiple Israeli commentators are saying that the Israeli demand is to transfer Gaza’s population into the Sinai desert. It is inconceivable that this would ever be accepted by neighbouring Arab nations, and it has been called an attempt to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip. I hope that does not happen.
We have heard that a lot of Britain’s policy since 1980 has been to support a two-state solution, which I support, as do most of us, I am sure. But massive settlement building and confiscation of Palestinian land on the West Bank and elsewhere have been designed to undermine that solution. Can there really be a two-state solution in the face of this? So will the Government now join humanitarian agencies and the growing number of countries to call for a ceasefire to allow urgent humanitarian aid to get through, alongside working to release the hostages held in Gaza?
This war and conflict will do nothing to bring security or peace to the people of Israel or to Palestinians, and it is now threatening to destabilise the whole region. What is the objective and endgame of this campaign? We do not know, as we heard. I never thought I would say this, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that we need a Palestinian Nelson Mandela, but we also need an Israeli FW de Klerk, who had the courage to be a partner in peace.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, unlike the last speaker, I do not accept that the Israeli response to date has been disproportionate, nor do I find it inconceivable that Hamas would conceal themselves in churches or mosques or schools, because there is years of evidence showing that that is precisely what they do.
Those of us at Sunday’s Trafalgar Square vigil heard raw and direct from the families of the hostages and the relatives of the dead. The tragedy they recounted was scarcely believable but all too true. All suffering and every innocent death count, but there can be no equivocation or false equivalence about what has just happened, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, so powerfully reminded us.
Like most of us, I suspect, I support Palestinian as well as Israeli self-determination and nationhood, but all decent people can readily discern the difference between innocent murdered Israelis and murderous Hamas terrorists—all decent people can but not, it turns out, everyone. The past fortnight has exposed some uglier, darker and older reflexes. What were some of the responses by Islamist extremists parading on our streets on Saturday? They demanded the total eradication of Israel “from the river to the sea”. Let us not be coy about what that actually means. For the past 75 years, being an anti-Zionist has, in practical terms, meant being an advocate for the annihilation of the world’s only majority-Jewish nation, an actually existing UN member state and the Middle East’s only liberal democracy.
As if to prove the point, what was the response here from some of the far-left organisations, such as the Socialist Workers Party, to people shot in the head at a bus stop, murdered at a music festival and decapitated in front of their parents—British citizens among them? The SWP said, “Rejoice”—that headline is still on its website as I speak. At times like this, the mask slips and we see the ugly face of anti-Jewish racism.
Criticising particular actions of particular Israeli Governments is not anti-Semitic, but categorising everything Israel does as inherently illegitimate most certainly is. When dead Israeli babies and grandmothers are said somehow to bear responsibility for their own murders, when Israel is blamed because Hamas conceals bombs and rockets in schools and mosques and when jihadists blow up a Gaza hospital, and yet Israel is instantly condemned, then a centuries-old virus is present in our midst.
At times like this, we need what Bernard-Henri Lévy calls The Will To See: to see that when the Iranian theocracy hangs its own citizens from cranes, denies the Holocaust and demands Israel be wiped from the face of the earth, they mean it. Therefore, we need the clear-sightedness to see that, all the while Hamas and other Iranian terrorist proxies control Gaza and deploy from Lebanon, they will continue to murder and oppress and destroy, including, as our own security services have confirmed, here on the streets of Britain. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has so powerfully explained, while they remain free to do so, there will be no two-state solution, or any other version of a just peace. They must be stopped, which means standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel and our allies, just as we do with Ukraine.
In doing so, many earlier contributions this afternoon have addressed vital immediate questions: how to get the hostages back, how to protect civilians, how to sustain recently improving relations between Arab states and Israel, which Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed the latest atrocities were specifically designed to destroy. However, we must also confront the full implications of 7 October by asking some wider questions. First, will the Government now follow the lead of other countries in proscribing Islamist extremists such as Hizb ut-Tahrir? Why should we tolerate hateful ideologies, the poison on our streets? If there are gaps in our current incitement legislation, as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner believes, surely the Government should use the forthcoming King’s Speech to put the matter beyond doubt?
Secondly, the Prime Minister yesterday rightly announced more humanitarian aid for Gaza, and it is obvious that much more will be required. However, in response to the question about the concern for the state of the Palestinian economy, it is not illegitimate to ask why, when over the past decade over $6 billion of international funding has flowed into Hamas-controlled Gaza, the people of Gaza have been confronted with the situation that they have. What guarantees do we have that none of the future humanitarian aid and assistance will cross-subsidise jihadist tunnels, rockets and death?
Thirdly and finally, can the Minister update us on progress on disrupting Iranian weapons flowing to Hamas and Hezbollah, and to Russia for use against Ukraine? As we all know, the Iranian regime is also brazenly developing its capabilities for nuclear weapons of mass destruction, yet just this past week UN sanctions under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 have expired. Can the Minister tell us what alternative action is being taken with our allies to guarantee that Tehran can never threaten nuclear terror? As the Minister so rightly said, sometimes it takes a shock such as this to focus our minds. The 7 October was a tragic and terrible day. Grant us the will to see and the strength to act.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to my noble friend the Minister. I think that all, across this House, would agree that his diplomacy, compassion and hard work have been essential at this time of high emotions, and for that I thank him.
Six minutes is not long enough to fully acknowledge the grief of those who have lost loved ones in this recent outbreak of violence, the pain of the families who so brutally witnessed the killing and abduction of their loved ones on 7 October, and the ongoing pain of those who await the return of those taken as hostages, including British families whom I have met with, cried with and continue to advocate with. Their loved ones must be returned, so I join the calls of so many others when I say to Hamas: “Let them go. Your actions were brutal. I condemn you for your breach of international law and your flagrant violation of the laws of the faith you profess to follow, where women, children and the elderly, even in a state of war, are off limits”.
Six minutes is not long enough to acknowledge the pain and suffering of nearly 70 years of living under occupation, the forced displacement from ancestral home and lands and the generations that have lost lives, livelihoods and now, tragically, hope. But often in the midst of the darkest of periods, we see beacons of light: the peacemakers.
Today as I call for an immediate ceasefire and halt to the violence, I want to speak of some of these peacemakers who call for the same: British Jews who stand outside the Israeli embassy protesting for peace; rabbis and other British Israelis who attend marches for Palestinian rights; British Jewish lawyers who call for restraint and adherence to international law; British Jewish and Israeli organisations, including ex-IDF soldiers calling for an immediate ceasefire; and the 30 Israeli human rights organisations which came together calling for an end to the bombardment.
I speak of the powerful voices of Yonatan Ziegen, whose mother Vivian, a peace activist, is still missing and who said his mother would be “mortified” by the bombardment in Gaza and that vengeance is not a strategy for peace; and of Noi Katzman, brother of Chaim Katzman, killed by Hamas, who has urged Israel not to use his brother’s death as justification for killing innocent people.
I speak of Maoz Inon, a peace activist, who lost both his parents in the attack and said he was seeking not revenge but peace and equality, and that
“war is not the answer”.
I speak of Neta Heiman, whose 84 year-old mother, Ditza, was taken hostage by Hamas. Neta expressed her anger at the Israeli Government:
“I call out to the government … Do not destroy the Gaza Strip; that won’t help anyone and will … bring .. even more …violence”.
She urged us all to:
“bring about an agreement between the two sides—not an ‘arrangement’, but a true peace agreement”.
I speak of David Zonsheine, whose uncle was killed and cousin taken hostage by Hamas, who said:
“Revenge is not a vision. Killing civilians is not a plan”.
I speak of Yaakov Argamani, the father of Noa Argamani who was abducted from the music festival by Hamas fighters, who urged for his daughter to be returned by peaceful measures. I quote his powerful words:
“Let us make peace with our neighbors, in any way possible. I want there to be peace; I want my daughter to come back. Enough with the wars. They too have casualties, they too have captives, and they have mothers who weep. We are two peoples to one Father. Let’s make real peace”.
I speak of Elana Kaminka, who—movingly, as the mother of an Israeli soldier killed on 7 October—said that she could not bear any more mothers losing their child:
“this was a horrible attack on innocent civilians. You can’t fix that. The idea of more lives lost just tears me apart, because I know what it means to lose your child”.
Can any one of us profess to care more, be impacted more, to understand more than these Israelis? They are families at the heart of this tragedy who call for peace, ask for their grief not be weaponised, reject revenge, seek co-existence, and acknowledge the humanity of all, including the Palestinian people. Blessed are the peacemakers.
I ask us to follow the lead of these peacemakers. I urge noble Lords to choose peace over revenge and join me in asking His Majesty’s Government to call for an immediate ceasefire. I ask noble Lords not to follow the lead of an Israeli Prime Minister who is mired in allegations of corruption, in bed with far-right extremists, forming a Government on the basis of a coalition agreement that denies the very existence of a Palestinian state from the river to the sea, and who in 2019 said this about Hamas:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy—to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank”.
For over a decade, in this House and wider, I and others have been pleading with our Government to turn their attention to the ongoing suffering of occupation, alongside Israelis who have taken to the streets of Israel and around the world in their thousands in recent years to warn of the rise of far-right extremism in Israeli politics and the egregious breaches of human rights. For too long we have failed Palestinians and we have failed Israelis. We now see the consequences of that failure. Let us turn this moment of tragedy into hope and a genuine path to a two-state solution, and that starts with calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Finally, as a mother, I end with a clear call at this moment on behalf of innocent women and children, hostages and others caught up in this war. To Hamas I say, “Stop this violence and let them go”. To the Israeli Government I say, “End the occupation and let them live”.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and I thank the Minister for his measured introduction and constructive remarks.
The horrific events of recent weeks have shocked the world and I join others in condemning the violent attack on Israeli citizens and the taking of hostages. It is a savage violation of the right to protection of innocent civilians. I send my heartfelt sympathy to the families who have lost loved ones and to those who wait in an agony of anxiety, fearing for the fate of family and friends who are still hostages. I welcome today’s release of the two hostages and call for the immediate release of the remaining ones—and, as others have said, for an immediate ceasefire.
Israel of course deserves support and sympathy across the world in seeking to obtain the release of the hostages, but it must be asked how likely this is to be achieved by the bombardments and siege of Gaza. Is the killing of more than 5,000 Palestinians, and 15,000 casualties, likely to achieve this and the declared objective of destroying Hamas? The noble Lord, Lord Reid, was very graphic in his description of the potential consequences of escalation of this conflict. We need to bear those in mind.
The scenes of carnage as Israeli troops continue the deadly war in Gaza and drive its people from their homes—people who have no other refuge or escape—risk causing public sympathy to ebb away. The refusal of the British Government to condemn the killings of innocent civilians in Gaza and their reluctance to join in action with the humanitarian agencies in stopping this devastation are other decisions that will have widespread consequences in the region and worldwide.
How, we must ask, will mass retribution and collective punishment of civilians in Gaza provide any resolution to the issue of Israeli security? The five preceding bombardments since 2005 have manifestly failed to achieve this. Indeed, violence and oppression add fuel to the flames of conflict and bolster the positions of extremists on both sides. The present 2.3 million people who live in Gaza are civilians. Half of them are children. They have had no part in the fighting and are powerless to affect it, yet they have no way of escaping the bombardments. Deprived of food, shelter and water, families are gathering “to die together” and children are writing their names on their note pads “so that when they are killed, people will know who they are”—this is a result of the endless unidentified victims of the fighting. The threat of disease continues to grow through the withholding of clean water and resultant poor sanitation as bodies pile up in the streets and hospitals become morgues through the withholding of electricity. One child is dying in Gaza every 15 minutes.
Long before the events of 7 October, the humanitarian situation in Gaza was in crisis. Many agencies, including the UN, have been trying to draw the attention of the world to the desperate situation caused by the aggressive Israeli-Egyptian blockade of 16 years. Gaza is known as the largest open-air prison in the world. In 2012, the UN produced a report saying that Gaza would be unliveable by 2020 unless there was significant improvement to basic conditions. The reprisal bombardments are the sixth major war against Gaza since 2005. The impact has been traumatic, particularly on children, yet the world has stayed silent and nothing has been done to change this. A recent report found that four out of five children in Gaza had contemplated suicide. The agreed passage of lorries of aid through the Rafah crossing are a welcome sign but nothing like enough to save the people from a catastrophe. Before the crisis, 450 lorries per day were needed to support the needs of the population under blockade.
Sixteen years of forced containment of the citizens of Palestine under occupation have not achieved security for Israel. As many noble Lords today have said, justice is needed in place of oppression, and certainly the citizens of Gaza and the Occupied Territories must be part of any resolution plan. The forced evacuation of Gaza, the violent driving of people from their villages and the demolition of their homes and facilities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories by settlers with the support of the Government are not the way to peace. The circumstances are increasingly toxic and international leadership is needed to find a way forward as well as, as others have said, leadership from Palestinians and Israelis. It is heart-breaking to see the suffering and how little progress has been made in this deadly conflict over so many years. It is easy to see how many believe that the West has turned its back on the Palestinian people. I very much support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, on the future needs to resolve this conflict.
I hope that our message today will be one, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said, to restore the will for peace and to call for a cease to the mass killings, bombardment and siege in Gaza, for the safe release of the hostages and for renewed leadership on all sides to restart the dialogue towards long-term justice, peace and security in the region.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I stand in solidarity with Israeli and Palestinian civilians. I condemn the horrific terror attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians, with more than 1,000 people killed and more than 200 held hostage. They have justifiably evoked anxiety, fear, trauma and anger, particularly among Jewish communities in Israel, the United Kingdom and worldwide. However, the Israeli Government should not use the recent tragic events as justification for the collective punishment of innocent Palestinian civilians. They are not the enemy.
We must urgently demand an immediate ceasefire—with all sides complying with international laws. This includes Hamas releasing all hostages and Palestinian civilians having unrestricted and full access to food, fuel, medicines, water and health supplies—particularly for the 50,000 pregnant Palestinian women, 5,000 of whom will be giving birth in the next few weeks. Where are they supposed to give birth? If the UK Government are a true friend to Israel, then they must give the best advice, which is to show restraint and to respond proportionately and within international law. I know that the horrific hostage ordeal requires urgent actions, but such urgency did not have to involve cutting off water and electricity, bombing civilians and destroying infrastructure. A justification that has been used is that Hamas is using Palestinian civilians as shields. Does that mean that innocent Palestinian civilians have to be killed?
According to the United Nations, more than 4,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly civilians and mostly women and children, with more than 1.4 million people displaced. Children are having their names written on their arms so that they can be identified if they are killed. Parents are collecting body parts of their children in plastic carrier bags. Bodies are decaying in the rubble. Gaza is turning into a massive graveyard. I commend the courage of the health workers who have stayed to look after the wounded and dying. They are heroes. Civilian casualties should never be accepted as inevitable consequences of war. I therefore disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who said that they are an inevitable consequence. I understand that Israel has a right to defend itself and to protect its citizens but how is starving, withholding full access to aid for and killing innocent men, women, the elderly, the pregnant, the disabled, children and babies helping to defend Israel?
It has been suggested that there are no plausible alternatives. I wonder whether the Israeli leadership and its allies have tried hard enough to find those solutions. I find it perplexing that with the formidable military capabilities and state-of-the-art technology that the Israeli Government have and their exceptionally powerful and affluent allies—including the United Kingdom—this has not yielded viable alternatives that would safeguard innocent lives on all sides and bring an end to the cycles of death in the region. Perhaps it indicates a lack of political will, including by the Arab leadership in the region. However, now is a pivotal moment in history. We must finally make the two-state solution a reality, but it must also include the voices of Israeli and Palestinian women in peacebuilding efforts.
Because the conflict is a deeply sensitive and complex issue, it evokes strong emotions and passionate responses. We have therefore seen a surge in hateful rhetoric, stereotypes and discrimination towards Jewish and Muslim communities in Britain. I am outraged by the actions of a small minority attempting to hijack the protests in support of Hamas or even to celebrate the attacks. Such behaviour is utterly reprehensible and should be dealt with by the full force of the law.
However, it is crucial to emphasise that these individuals do not represent the majority, who are united in their support for Palestinian human rights. Palestinian human rights do not equate to antisemitism or endorsing Hamas. I am deeply concerned that misinformation is being used to supress legitimate expressions of solidarity and advocacy. This suppression may also include Muslims in particular being reported to the police and Prevent programmes. The right to express one’s concerns and opinions on matters of global importance is a fundamental pillar of democratic societies. We must be able to stand up for human rights and peace for all without fear or favour.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the massacre of Israeli civilians and the taking of more than 2,000 hostages ranging from babies to a Holocaust survivor on 7 October, together with the sustained rocket attacks on to the State of Israel and at sea have shocked the whole world. The attacks were clearly planned to coincide with the Sabbath nearest to the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur war, when Israel was attacked and invaded by surrounding nations. Of course, today’s attacks continue.
This conflict is distinctive, because it began with a deliberate massacre of civilians and is the result of a general strategy that, as plans found on the bodies of dead Hamas combatants reveal, involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. Thus, the civilians affected are not victims of so-called collateral damage, where they are killed or injured accidentally, but the result of their being the express and deliberate target. Of course, that makes sense, because according to Hamas, Israel has no right to exist; and if it has no right to exist, plainly no one in Israel, be they combatants or non-combatants, has a right to exist.
Israel’s reaction, by contrast, has been quite different. It has a massive challenge, because the only way in which it can stop Hamas is by counterattacking Gazan territory to remove Hamas—a territory that, as in any war, has a far larger civilian than combatant population. Rather than asking its troops to target Gazan civilians, the Israeli army is doing the opposite. It is urging its troops to avoid civilians. It is sending warnings about the areas that it intends to target and is encouraging civilians to move. Some people might respond by saying, “Well, why should they move? It is wrong to ask them to do so.” However, if we are to adopt that position, we are effectively saying one of two things: either we are saying that they should stay put and Israel has no right to defend its population and should not seek to take out Hamas and should just let the rocket and other attacks continue; or we are saying that Israel should attack to take out Hamas, and if civilians are killed because they remained in target areas, then so be it. Neither approach is credible. The only credible approach is what Israel is actually doing.
I am troubled that some spokespeople in surrounding countries that were combatants against Israel 50 years ago are failing to make these critical distinctions and concerned about the potential for things to escalate. This is no doubt what Hamas had in mind in its decision to choose the 50th anniversary of the nearest Sabbath to the Yom Kippur war, a conflict that engulfed much of the Middle East. In this context, we all have a responsibility to be clear about the distinctions between Israel’s non-combatant civilian policy and the policy of Hamas.
I am the same age as the State of Israel, and I cannot imagine what it must have been like to have been invaded in 1948—less than four years after the end of the Holocaust—and again in 1967, 1973, 1982, and so on, and now this. I am very pleased to stand today with the people of Israel. I think it is my duty and responsibility.
I am also very mindful of the innocent Gazan population into which Hamas embeds itself. There is plainly a desperate need for humanitarian relief that gets to where it is needed and not into the hands of Hamas. We are all indebted to those brave people working night and day to secure safe passage of the aid to the civilian population. They have, I am sure, the support of everyone in this House.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, there is a prayer said in my synagogue and others at least once in every service by the whole community, and particularly by those in mourning:
“May He who makes Peace in His high places, may He make Peace for us, for all Israel and all mankind”.
It is pretty much the last prayer of the service, when we do not pray for a better quality of life, for happiness or for material success: we pray for peace, which is the ultimate gift God can give. I suspect there is a similar thread in other religions, not least the Muslim religion, as my noble friend Lord Ahmad said in his opening speech.
Before discussing Israel, I do, of course, refer to the register of interests, which discloses my close connections with Israel and, in particular, Jerusalem.
It must be clear to all right-minded people that Israel has the right and duty to ensure peace for all its citizens. It is now clear that the only way to achieve that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, is the termination of the power of Hamas. Every other route has failed. Israel withdrew all its settlements in Gaza, left the opportunity to continue a successful agricultural industry, left the foundations of an airport and a sea port, and provided free electricity, but Hamas killed its opponents and then would not let its people benefit from anything it regarded as tainted by Israel.
To understand Hamas, you have to listen to Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of the founder of Hamas. He spent years in an Israeli prison, and now explains to the world that Hamas has only one objective, which is to enrich and empower itself, even at the risk of its own people. One has to ask how human beings can physically commit the atrocities that Hamas perpetrated a couple of weeks ago. Munira Mirza, writing in the New Statesman, explains it in part as the export of radical Islamism from Iran, which has a dogma to dehumanise non and ex-Muslims, treating women as lesser beings, and encouraging violent hatred of Jews. As she says, most Muslims do, of course, see through this, but a very small number have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated and brainwashed by fanatics.
There must be consequences of this evil perpetrated by Hamas on innocent Jews and innocent Muslims, so what do we need to do? First, we now need to proscribe the IRGC. I voted against the Government earlier this year for only the third time in 10 years. I did that with a heavy heart. It was during a debate on the security Bill, when there were efforts to enable legislation to be passed for the proscription. At the time, the Home Office was, I believe, in favour, but the Foreign Office claimed that the US Government did not want us to do this, as we would lose our embassy in Tehran. The position has now changed. I urge the Minister not to make me vote against my Government again. Will he please explain to us why our security services and the BBC took so long to confirm that the missile that landed near the al-Ahli hospital was not Israeli? Have we learned the lesson not to trust briefing from Gaza, but to know that the Israelis have a track record of telling the truth and undertaking proper investigation?
Secondly, we need to properly police the demos in the UK, which are clearly inciting violence. Further, I have seen the manual from Palestinian Action Underground with instructions on how to commit offences on British businesses supplying Israel. It even has its own website up and running. This needs to be closed.
Thirdly, we need to press Qatar to do more to secure the release of the hostages and reduce the violence. Lastly, we need to support Israel when it eventually enters Gaza to find these evil people, who will otherwise seek to kill again and are still sending rockets to Israel, even today into Tel Aviv.
As the international lawyer Natasha Hausdorff has explained, we need to be clear that it is entirely within international law for Israel to do what it is doing now, and what it needs to do: to enter Gaza, not supply electricity—which it had been giving freely to Gaza—and not allow in any fuel, which would only be used to make rockets. Of course, the leaders of Hamas have plenty of fuel and power; they have stolen it from the UNRWA enclaves. That fuel should instead be used for humanitarian purposes in hospitals.
The IDF has been rated by British servicemen as the most ethical military in the world. It is full of conscripts who are themselves regular citizens and quite rightly at pains to minimise any further suffering to civilians. Any breaches of international code by them, and indeed by settlers—as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has just said—deserve punishment and will receive it. However, we have to stand up, take the difficult decision and say, “We will back Israel to take these actions that it believes are necessary, as we believe this is the only route to peace”.
We know and mourn that there will be innocent tragedies—innocent fatalities. There always are in war. It is the price that Hamas has forced us to pay, but we still pray:
“May He who makes peace in His high places, may He make peace for us, for all Israel and all mankind. Amen”.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for so eloquently setting out the Government’s position. A group of eminent Jewish lawyers wrote a letter over a week ago to the Financial Times condemning the appalling atrocities committed by Hamas as a crime against humanity. I strongly agree. They also state that, under international law, Israel has a right to respond in self-defence and to seek justice for the awful crimes that have been committed on its soil. I agree. They continue by saying that international law and, more specifically, the rules of war should be complied with in any response, however great the crimes against them. The lawyers then list their concerns about Israel’s response, arguing, first, that it is a grave violation of international law to hold a civilian population under siege and, secondly, that international law requires ensuring minimum destruction of civilian life and infrastructure. It is essential that we live by these laws, they say, and I agree with them.
Since the publication of this letter, 2.2 million people in Gaza have been besieged without supplies of food, water, fuel and medicines, with the maximum destruction of infrastructure destroying any semblance of normality in civilian life. Israeli bombs have razed residential areas and hit schools, medical facilities, plants providing electricity and water, mosques and churches. Nearly 6,000 Palestinians have been killed, more than a third of them children, and more are unaccounted for, buried under rubble. Hospitals are struggling to cope with thousands more who have been injured, including many children.
The terrible suffering of the people of Gaza should touch us all. What has been inflicted on them is another crime against humanity. Does the Minister agree, and will the Government condemn it? The Israeli Government have also told 1.1 million Palestinian civilians to leave their homes in north Gaza and go to the south. Hundreds of thousands have left and are now homeless in the south. This amounts to mass forcible transfer, which, under the Rome statute, is a crime against humanity. Still the killing goes on, as air strikes continue across central and southern Gaza to where these civilians have been told to flee.
The Government are focused on calling for more humanitarian aid to be provided. Would it not be better to ask for a ceasefire and a lifting of the siege so that the cause of the need for ever increasing amounts of humanitarian aid might be addressed? I welcome the Government’s announcement yesterday of funding for aid on top of the £10 million already announced, but can the Minister tell the House whether, and how, the first tranche is being spent? Does he agree that the tiny number of trucks allowed through the Rafah crossing cannot meet the huge needs—and that fuel must be included too, so that hospitals do not run out of power and water pumps can work? Without that, deaths will rise.
Time is running out for the people of Gaza, nearly half of whom have been displaced from their homes with nowhere to go; many are traumatised, fearing they will never be able to return to them. It is good news that two more Israeli hostages have been released; but they must all be released and, with the help of Qatar, priority must surely be given to negotiating this with Hamas. Many Israeli citizens are calling for this to happen.
An invasion of Gaza is a terrifying prospect for the families of hostages. It also threatens a widening conflict across the Middle East, with horrific consequences, including a war between Hezbollah and Israel and the destabilising of Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. What is the UK Government’s position on this planned invasion, which will lead to more death and destruction, including the deaths of many Israeli soldiers, and a prolonged and probably wider war?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister—and today, the Minister—rightly referred to the need for a two-state solution, but what have the Government done in recent years to help bring this about? Too little, I fear. The West Bank has been occupied for 56 years, breaking the rules of war, and 250 illegal settlements have been built there, making the two-state solution far more difficult. Unless the international community brokers longer-term solutions that address the underlying problems, there is a danger that this horrible cycle of death and destruction will continue.
In the short term, Hamas must release all the hostages and stop firing rockets into Israel, and Israel must cease its bombardment of Gaza. Will the Government do what, according to a recent YouGov poll, 75% of British citizens want—as do the many Jewish organisations listed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi—and commit to a ceasefire so that, out of this awful crisis, opportunities for peace and reconciliation, and for an agreement between Palestine and Israel, can be pursued?
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Salaam alaikum. My Lords, I was in my early teens in a classroom when I learned of the horrors that Jewish people had suffered during the Second World War. I remember the moment well. What made a deep impression was the realisation that it was not ancient history; that it had happened only a few short years before, and that there were people alive who had endured the Holocaust, and people alive who had perpetrated it: 6 million innocent people murdered because they were born Jewish. I abhor cruelty and injustice, and my heart bled for the Jewish people.
Today, I condemn unreservedly Hamas’s vicious attack on unarmed civilians on 7 October and the taking of hostages. Both are war crimes committed by a proscribed terrorist organisation. Anguish and trauma in Israel are all-consuming, and action to punish the perpetrators is Israel’s right; but further war crimes and the contravening of international humanitarian law can never be the answer—not for a democratic country with principles and values rooted in the rule of law.
Martin Griffiths, the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief co-ordinator, has stated:
“The parties’ actions and rhetoric over the past few days are extremely alarming and unacceptable. Even wars have rules, and these rules must be upheld, at all times, and by all sides”.
According to the Rome statute, the forcible transfer of Palestinians from northern Gaza in readiness for an Israeli ground invasion is a crime against humanity. Palestinians are suffering the bombing of civilian targets such as schools, water installations and hospitals.
The British Government expressed their support for the complete siege of Gaza: no electricity, no food, no water and no fuel, as announced by the Israeli Defense Minister. I think that was an aberration. I hope so. I hope that our Government will support instead the call from the 12 major aid agencies for an end to the total siege and allow unfettered humanitarian access. The 50 trucks currently allowed in amount to no more than a drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of trucks a day needed.
The Israeli Defense Minister, in announcing the siege, spoke of
“fighting human animals and we act accordingly”.
Those words sent a chill through my veins. Can the Minister say whether our Government are making it plain that there will be a distinction between Hamas militants—terrorists—and civilians, and that it is not acceptable to use language that dehumanises Palestinians?
There is a real risk that the war in Gaza will spread. Israeli settlers in the West Bank are being given additional weapons and are using them to murder unarmed Palestinians. I ask the Minister what efforts the UK Government are making to avoid an escalation of this war in the West Bank, as well as further in the region. We know from history that other intractable problems, such as those in Northern Ireland and apartheid in South Africa, were ultimately solved only by sworn enemies taking a seat at the negotiating table. Does the Minister agree that the starting point must be a full independent international inquiry, followed by a process of accountability for all parties, with full access to the Gaza strip and Israel, so that those responsible for crimes can be held accountable?
I draw attention to a widely respected movement called Women Wage Peace, a coalition of Jewish and Arab women working towards the peaceful and secure co-existence of Israelis and Palestinians. I should like to read from their position paper released on 15 October this year:
“This war proves, more than ever, that the concept of ‘managing the conflict’ failed … We must turn every stone in order to reach a political solution … The Palestinian people will not disappear, nor will we … All conflicts in the world have been resolved by peace agreements … Hamas has already managed to destroy the negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Hamas must not be allowed to win! We know these words sound imaginary, naive and unrealistic, but this is the truth, and we must recognize it. Every mother, Jewish and Arab, gives birth to her children to see them grow and flourish and not to bury them”.
I finish with the word of the released hostage Yocheved Lifschitz to her masked Hamas captor: shalom.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the delegation to Israel organised by ELNET and led by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. We spent a day at the Gaza border at the crossing at Kerem Shalom, with 500 trucks coming in and out of Gaza every day. We looked out on Gaza, next to Sderot, and saw an Iron Dome battery, and 1,000 rockets had been fired in the four weeks before our visit. We interacted with the Israeli Parliament and Ministers, and with Fatah, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. We visited the Yad Vashem, remembering and commemorating the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust. Yet we came away from that visit dejected by the political situation in Israel at the time. How lucky we are to have the House of Lords. Israel does not have a senate or checks and balances. Fatah and Hamas do not talk to each other. There has been no democracy in the West Bank or in Gaza.
Not once did we feel unsafe. In fact, we were impressed by Israel being on top of its security situation, including with regard to Gaza. Who would have predicted what happened a few months later on 7 October, when Hamas took Israel by surprise and brutally murdered 1,400 Israelis and took over 200 hostages. As the most reverend Primate said, it was a pogrom. Last week, I was shown a film by the Israeli embassy, with footage of the horrors of 7 October. It was horrific beyond belief—cruel, monstrous and barbaric. These are terrorists; these are inhuman monsters. What they did to babies, children, families, old people and Holocaust survivors was horrific beyond the worst possible nightmare. This is just two-an-a-half weeks after 7 October. We cannot forget the magnitude of that horror. Israel must have the right to defend itself. Its aim is to dismantle Hamas and this must be allowed to happen.
However, in doing so the loss of life in Gaza is tragic, with the destruction taking place as a result of the airstrikes and shelling—and this is before a possible ground assault. The Palestinians in Gaza have been asked to move to the south, and yet bombing by Israel in the south continues because Hamas continues to operate from the south. It is firing rockets every day, from north and south, and Israel has to be able to attack the terrorists. But, as many noble Lords have said, Israel must always operate within international law. We must allow aid to get into Gaza for the 2.2 million innocent residents there.
Every Israeli Minister we spoke to mentioned Iran. Why are we not proscribing the IRGC? It is about time we did. Iran is backing Hezbollah, and it cannot be allowed to get into this war.
The hostages must be released now, and not two by two, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said.
What is tragic about this war is that it seems to have given rise to huge anti-Semitism. It is not a war between Islam and Judaism or between Muslims and Jews. This is a battle of humanity against Hamas; a battle of humanity against terrorism of the most horrific and worst kind. This is a battle against sheer evil. The UK, United States and NATO must do everything they can to stop the war escalating. We are staring into the abyss. We are staring into the possibility of World War III and it cannot be allowed to happen. The 9/11 attacks led to NATO implementing Article 5 for the first and only time in its history. It led to the invasion of Afghanistan, where we were for 20 years. The Iraq war in 2003 had no plan for after victory, which led to Syria and to ISIS. The Afghanistan withdrawal gave Putin the confidence to go into Ukraine, and Afghanistan is now back in the hands of the Taliban. When are we going to learn?
A few weeks ago, I spoke in the debate on the first anniversary of the Abraham accords: Israel, the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco establishing relations, tourism, business, trade and friendship. In the debate, we spoke about the possibility of Saudi Arabia normalising relations with Israel. How ironic that these developments of progress and peace have led to Hamas doing what it has done now. Peace and friendship are not in Hamas’s vocabulary. Creating havoc and murdering is the objective of these cowardly terrorists, who use human beings and children as shields. The vast—I repeat vast—majority of Muslims and Jews do not want conflict or war; they want peace.
As she was released as a hostage, Yocheved Lifschitz turned around and gripped the hand of one of the masked Hamas terrorists who had kept her captive and said, “shalom”. What amazing dignity. Shalom means peace, harmony and tranquillity, and that is exactly what we need throughout the Middle East and the world today: peace.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
My Lords, this is a difficult speech for me to make, because we have heard so many wonderful speeches today. I particularly mention the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who spoke before me; having tears in one’s eyes is not really a good way to start a speech in the House of Lords.
I will talk about two aspects of Gaza from my experiences and make some comments as a British Jewish person. I have nothing from my register of interests to declare but, for noble Lords who do not know me, I should say that I was chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel for the best part of a decade. I have made many visits to Israel to family and friends. I went to Gaza several times, in better times, and I saw people who were very like the Israeli population: there were a lot of small businesses, people working in workshops and people who we would call middle class with professions and occupations.
Most of those people are dead today, not at the hands of Israelis but at the hands of Hamas. This is not a war between Israel and Palestine or between Jew and Muslim. It is a war against Hamas, which represents terrorism and evil. This is good against evil. It is a proxy war for that between western democracies and Iran, which is the enemy of everything that we all stand for. Its tyrannical dictators have captured the population of Gaza, most of whom, from my personal experiences, as I have said, are perfectly normal people who felt pretty bad about the original refugee situation and had come to terms with a fairly miserable life under the Egyptians—but there was hope, and it has gone.
We have to accept that, before what happened on 7 October, 70% of the adult population of Gaza were unemployed. Those people had no hope. Their way of life was under tyranny, hugely exacerbated by Hamas, which was using them to siphon off a lot of well-meaning aid.
Noble Lords may be interested in one of the few things that has not been mentioned today: 50% of the population of Gaza are 18 or under. These people were not even alive when Gaza came under the control of Hamas. It is all they have known. They are sent to summer schools; in fact, some United Nations summer schools try to compete to teach people to be moderate and other things. But Hamas controls these indoctrinated people.
Is there a future? There is no question but that, in the short term, Israel has to destroy Hamas and release the hostages, whatever it takes. That has to be done. After that, the experience of ISIS, which basically is Hamas, is that when invasions have taken place in Iraq and elsewhere, most just disappear into the general population. The Israelis have an extremely difficult task.
If one good thing comes from this terrible mess, it is that it will put paid to the false belief in Israeli society that security alone is enough for the Israeli people’s future and will provide a way of life that means they can live for ever in the type of freedom and prosperity they want. A solution somehow has to be found in their relations with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. I believe that the Israeli public will realise that. In the end, it could be a political realignment. Somehow the Israelis have to find the partners that they do not have at the moment. I am afraid that the Palestinian Authority is a bunch of corrupt old men, and in Gaza there is Hamas. If something is to come out of this, it must be moderate partners that can provide peace in future.
In my remaining time, I will make a brief point as a British Jew. Some things do not change. In 1940 my father was conscripted into the British Army and was hospitalised by his fellow troops, who were Mosleyite fascists, for being Jewish. While they were kicking him, they told him to get back to Palestine. That was quite interesting, since his family had been here since 1680, but that is a small problem.
What has changed? In the rally of 100,000 people supposedly for Palestine, the same kind of anti-Semitic comments were heard. They were not anti-Israeli comments; they were anti-Semitic. I am a British Jew. Despite having family and friends in Israel, this is 100% my country. It has been the country of my ancestors for hundreds of years. The Israel cause and the Israel-Palestine thing are now being fully exploited by extremists preaching anti-Semitism—and I never thought I would say that. I am the last person to talk about anti-Semitism all the time.
But there is hope. There has to be hope. Peace with Egypt came out of the Yom Kippur War. It will take a lot for Israel to do what it needs to do but, in the end, there is hope that it leads to peace and prosperity for all people who live in the Middle East.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I speak while this tragic situation is happening in Gaza. I have learned a lot from the speakers before me and their huge amount of knowledge and experience. I have nothing to declare, because I have never been to the region or visited Israel or Palestine, and neither do I have any family connections. All I have done is to read about it and learn from the media. Whatever I say is based on that information.
On 7 October we woke to learn the shocking news that Hamas, a terrorist organisation proscribed by the UK Government, had launched an assault on Israeli territory. The latest estimated death toll from the attacks, excluding militants, is 1,400, with more than 4,600 people injured. Hamas fighters have also reportedly taken at least 200—not 2,000, as one of the previous speakers said—hostages back into Gaza, including 20 children. That is horrific. I urge Hamas to release these prisoners.
In response to the Hamas attacks, Israel launched a relentless bombing campaign against the besieged enclave, razing neighbourhood after neighbourhood. This continues as we speak. The latest media reports by the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,000. Women and children make up more than 62% of fatalities, while more than 15,200 people, including 35 UN workers, have been injured. I condemn the killing of all innocent people from all sides.
As a result of the Israeli bombardment, thousands of buildings are reported to have been destroyed, including residential blocks, hospitals, mosques and churches. More than 1 million people have been displaced in the territory, which has been under siege and largely deprived of water, food and other basic supplies. This collective punishment is against international law and could amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Israel has reportedly amassed a force of 360,000 IDF troops to launch a ground assault on Gaza and has called on the residents of Gaza City to evacuate ahead of reported plans for a ground invasion by IDF forces. However, there have been reports of further air strikes on evacuees, killing a large number of mainly women and children, with questions raised about how feasible any evacuation of such a large-population area is.
Since the initial Hamas attacks, rising tensions in the West Bank have led to deadly clashes between Israeli security forces and the settlers and Palestinians. The UN reports that 79 Palestinians, including 20 children, and one Israeli soldier have been killed.
Let us remind ourselves that this conflict did not start on 7 October 2023. Gaza is a walled area, 25 miles long and six miles wide. The flow of food, water and basic amenities is controlled by Israel. It is recognised by most humanitarian groups as the world’s largest open prison. People try to live there while staring death in the eye on a daily basis. This has been normalised by the rest of the world. We must be reminded of the facts—facts that have not changed in almost 70 years.
In its 2022 report, the independent organisation Amnesty International said:
“Whether they live in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, or Israel itself, Palestinians are treated as an inferior racial group and systematically deprived of their rights. We found … Israel’s cruel policies of segregation, dispossession and exclusion across all territories under its control”.
We need to back a ceasefire and use our influence to get the Israeli Government to allow humanitarian aid, water, food and fuel supplies to the northern areas, as well as to the south of the Gaza Strip, and to lift the siege of the Gaza Strip completely. The conflict cannot go around in circles for another 70 years. We need to do everything to help to resolve it. The world cannot fail another generation of Palestinians.
What happens in the Middle East and other parts of the world often raises concerns in many communities in this country. The United Kingdom is proud of our diversity, where people from all faiths, colours and cultures work and enjoy themselves together. I am sure that this House will stand united to make sure that events in other parts of the world do not give rise to any form of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism in our country.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the Government, the Labour Front Bench, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and so many noble Lords for the sympathy and support shown to Israel during the very difficult times of the past two and a half weeks, and for the condemnation expressed for the growing anti-Semitism in this country. It is a great comfort and reassurance to the Jewish community, and very much appreciated.
I declare my interests. My wife is Israeli. We have a home in Israel; the Minister has been our guest. We know families who have been bereaved by the terrible actions of 7 October. My friends in Israel have children and grandchildren who have paused their university careers, occupations and family life to join the armed forces to defend their country. They would all much prefer to live in peace with their neighbours, but certain basic truths explain why these reasonable, decent people are supporting military action at this time.
The first is obvious, but it needs to be said. Hamas seeks the destruction of the State of Israel and all Jews living there; its charter proclaims these goals. The shocking events of 7 October demonstrate that this is not just a theory. Hamas is willing to implement its aims by the murder, torture and abduction of Jews, however young or old, religious or secular and whatever their political views. Worse, Hamas is supported by a powerful state, Iran, which has regularly announced the same aim of destroying Israel. Tragically, we know from recent European history—two decades before I was born in 1956—that, when states or groups announce that they are going to murder Jews and remove them from the face of the earth, they need to be stopped.
The second basic truth follows from the first. Because Hamas and its supporters seek the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews who stand in the way, Hamas has no interest in a political settlement. It has no wish to negotiate a two-state solution. The only solution in which Hamas is interested is what the Nazis called a final solution. It is naive in the extreme to think that it would make the slightest difference to the conduct of Hamas if only the Israeli Government were to alter their policies. I oppose many of these, as, more significantly, does a large proportion of the Israeli population. Earlier this week, President Herzog of Israel, a very wise man, said that you cannot make peace with a neighbour who wants to chop off your children’s heads.
The third basic fact is that a state that faces such threats to its existence is entitled to defend itself. No other state in the world would tolerate or be expected to tolerate such a threat at its border. International law clearly permits Israel to remove the ability of Hamas to fire missiles at its population and the threat of further incursions to torture, kill and abduct people.
The fourth basic truth is that Israel faces profound strategic as well as moral dilemmas. There are no easy answers when Hamas is embedded in a civilian population, has a network of tunnels and is holding more than 200 hostages. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to a letter in the Financial Times last week from some lawyers. In a letter in the Times last Friday, I said with my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven that it is very easy for those lawyers to pronounce on international law from the safety of their chambers in the Temple without regard to the threat that Israel faces and the problems in removing it.
A fifth and final basic truth is that Israelis know and deeply regret that the civilian population of Gaza are suffering. Tragically—and it is a tragedy—war in Gaza is causing and will cause immense suffering and death to innocent people. War always does. Israel must do and is doing all it can to minimise civilian deaths—a difficult task when Hamas embeds itself in schools, hospitals and mosques. We should be in no doubt who is responsible for this appalling situation: Hamas and all who support its perverted ideology. This includes those who shamefully celebrate on the streets of London when Israeli civilians are tortured, murdered and abducted.
In his very thoughtful opening remarks, the Minister emphasised the virtues of open debate on difficult issues. One of the tragedies of Gaza is that anyone who expresses the view that their Government should stop spending money on missiles and tunnels and focus on industry, health and education would be speedily tortured and murdered.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is always worth listening to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is a privilege to follow that brilliant speech. I start by expressing my condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and her family on the death of their relative. I draw attention to my registered interests. I am the Prime Minister’s voluntary trade envoy to Israel.
In 2017, I visited Nir Oz, one of the small kibbutzim on the Gaza border attacked by Hamas. Survivors say that between one-quarter and one-third of its 350 residents were killed or kidnapped. What happened is worth repeating: babies beheaded, women raped, and families tied together and burned. It seems to me that, when Israeli officials use the word “animals”, they are not talking about Palestinians in general; they are talking about Hamas. It seems to be a perfectly accurate description. For people in this House to suggest that that word is being used about Palestinians in general is irresponsible and dangerous. This is brutal terrorism, just like ISIS.
I could never understand Holocaust denial, but social media for the past fortnight has been flooded with people claiming that babies had not been killed, or not in the reported numbers, and questioning the accounts of the survivors and Israeli officials bringing it to our attention. The attack on young people at the music festival would be the equivalent of 2,000 young British people being killed at Glastonbury. Over 7,000 missiles have been aimed indiscriminately at residential areas in Israel—not at military targets, which is what the IDF try to do. That is the same number of rockets fired by the Germans on the UK throughout the whole of the blitz. More Jewish people were killed on a single day than on any day since the Holocaust. In the face of that, Israel does not just have the legal right but a clear duty to defend its citizens, rescue the hostages and deal with Hamas.
The background to this is that Israel recently signed the Abraham accords to normalise relations with three Arab states and was in negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Iran, a state sponsor of terror, as we have heard, is desperate to prevent that, which is why Hamas launched this attack. It knew what Israel would have to do in response and does not care that ordinary people in Gaza are being put in harm’s way.
I have campaigned for a Palestinian state since I was a teenager, but the failure to establish one cannot be laid at Israel’s door. When the United Nations decided that there would be two states in land administered by the British in Palestine—two states, side by side, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay—the Jewish leadership agreed, and Israel was established. Instead of agreeing to a Palestinian state for the Arab population, five Arab countries invaded on day one and the Palestinians, tragically, are still without a state.
Since then, the Palestinians have been offered a state on three or four occasions. Tragically, again, the Palestinian leadership rejected them all, and groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad continued with terrorism. The terrible position of the people in Gaza cannot be blamed on Israel either. The responsibility for this is clearly the leadership of Hamas, who have amassed billions and live in air-conditioned luxury in the Four Seasons Hotel in Doha.
Gaza has not been occupied. We heard earlier that Gaza is under occupation, but Gaza has not been occupied for 18 years. When Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in 2005, it had a functioning economy, control of its imports and exports, open borders, plans to build a seaport and discussions on an airport. Then Hamas, committed to Israel’s destruction, staged a bloody coup, executed its rivals and banned elections. Its founding charter calls for Jews to be killed. People need to understand that it is opposed to the very idea of a peace process, which, it says, would involve the surrender of Islamic land. It is completely naive for people in this House to argue for a peace process with Hamas.
Hamas launched a vicious terrorist campaign, killing Israeli civilians. Instead of building hospitals and schools or a successful economy, it spends funds on rockets and tunnels to attack Israel. When people say that fuel has to be provided for the people of Gaza, of course it does, but the fuel is stolen by Hamas to fire its rockets. That is why Israel had to build border controls and security fences. Last week’s attacks show just how necessary they were. It is not, as we heard today, a blockade; it is a defence.
According to the UN, Hamas stores its rockets in schools used to house displaced people. While Israel uses its weapons to protect its people, Hamas uses the people to protect the weapons. We know the next few weeks will be awful; war always is. But British Army officers tell me that no army in the world takes as much care as Israel’s to protect civilians. We have heard calls for a ceasefire this afternoon. Hamas would use a ceasefire just to prepare the next attack.
Tragically, we have seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK, as we have heard. Since the attacks, the Community Security Trust has recorded at least 600 anti-Semitic incidents across the country, the highest ever recorded in a 17-day period. We have seen disgraceful support for terrorism at marches. This weekend in London, a rally was organised by the racist extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, at which people held a banner with the slogan “Muslim armies, rescue the people of Palestine”. A speaker was filmed asking, “What is the solution to liberate people in the concentration camp called Palestine?”, and in response the crowd chanted “Jihad”. Does anyone think that they were using the word “Jihad” to mean some sort of personal spiritual struggle? In that context, it is obviously a call to wage war on Israel. If that is not incitement, which the police should be dealing with, I do not know what is.
Finally, I will read what IDF general Mickey Edelstein said yesterday.
“They came to kill and burn civilians. Not military personnel. Civilians. … We told civilians to evacuate northern Gaza. Yes … and there are civilian casualties. But we are not looking for kids to kill. We are not looking to kill hostages … We do not find kids and then force them to go and ask their neighbours to come out, and then when they do kill them”.
This is the position Israel is in. Israel’s aim is to minimise civilian casualties. Hamas aims to kill as many civilians as it can.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as president of Conservative Friends of Israel and director of the Abraham Accords Group. It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Austin. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, for his moral clarity.
I was in Jerusalem on 7 October. The right reverend Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury talked about pride. I was proud the next day when I saw Downing Street with the flag of Israel, followed by the Foreign Office with the colours of Israel. Nobody should underestimate what that meant to the people of Israel, who were just coming to terms with and learning what had gone on in the south. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their steadfast and careful approach.
However, that careful approach is in stark contrast to some elements of the media who, on occasions, seem to take sides with devastating effect. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in particular, spoke about the hospital. I had my phone on just now, because I clicked on the BBC World Service, which has 5.3 million views, and it is still saying that Israel did the bomb the hospital. I could not believe that it is still there. It is on the BBC World Service; any noble Lord can click on it.
On Tuesday 17 October, I was at home watching Sky News as the story of the explosion at the hospital emerged. Anna Botting’s questioning of Mark Regev was deeply troubling. She even used the words, about President Biden’s forthcoming visit the next day to Jerusalem—I watched it again today—“It’s best he doesn’t come”. This was a Sky News presenter making that comment. It was outrageous. Like others, she had taken the words of Hamas propaganda as if it were the truth. As I said last night in this Chamber, the negative effect of broadcasters sharing lies was devastating across the region and across the world—some parliamentarians were a little too trigger happy also.
I agree with the many who are looking for that flicker of light in the darkness—the building up of the Abraham accords; the building up of peace between Israel and Jordan, and Israel and Egypt. All of that should be encouraging the Palestinians to join the Abraham accords, and we should all agree to that long sought-after two-state solution.
While we focus on the hostages—it is right that we focus on the hostages; they have to be returned—we should not forget the devastation to the families of 1,400 butchered innocent men, women and children. It is important to name them. There is one hostage in particular I would like to talk about this evening: Ohad Munder-Zichri. He turned nine years old yesterday, but rather than celebrating his birthday at home with his loved ones, he is currently being held hostage in Gaza, among the 200 other individuals. Ohad has been described as a gifted student, with exceptional abilities, encompassing various fields including sport and chess, and a remarkable skill on the Rubik’s cube. Like my noble friend the Minister and myself, he is an avid Liverpool football fan. I have a picture of him here, with his Mo Salah kit on—a nine year-old child. At home, his bedroom has been left untouched since his abduction; his shelves are filled with team souvenirs, his trophies and his family photos. Back on my phone, I clicked on Mo Salah, because Ohad is wearing his Mo Salah kit. Mo Salah spoke last week about this tragedy. He said, rightly, that all lives are sacred. That has had 176 million views—much more than any of us could imagine for anything we are doing. This is important. I urge my noble friend the Minister, who as I have said is a Liverpool fan too, to urge people like Mo Salah to continue to raise humanitarian issues.
Last week, I mentioned Ada Sagi. It is hard to contemplate that, since I did, that poor 75 year-old lady has spent another painful 192 hours in captivity—we do not know where. The agony for her son, Noam, and daughter-in-law, Michal, is beyond comprehension. All hostages must be released. I urge my noble friend the Minister to redouble efforts with Qatar, Egypt and the Red Cross, and with anyone else who can help.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, there have been fine speeches in this debate, introduced by the Minister so excellently—I was very sorry that I was a few minutes late to his speech. There is also a lot of high emotion, which I understand. The reason I decided to put my name down for this debate was because I felt that emotion about what happened to the people in the kibbutzes next to Gaza, which I visited on the same visit as my noble friend Lord Austin. There they had created what I thought was a little paradise on earth, with all their efforts over the years—an absolutely beautiful, peaceful, wonderful place. And then this happens.
Nothing can excuse that kind of slaughter. I cannot bear the people in Britain who seem to think that this is something the Israelis brought on themselves. That is an appalling view. I agree with all those who criticised the demonstrations at the weekend, because the whole tone was fundamentally against the very existence of the State of Israel. After what happened in the Second World War and the Holocaust, we all had a moral responsibility to provide a Jewish homeland. It has the full right to defend itself.
Having said that, I hope that the Israeli Government will behave with great care. I very much took note of the remark President Biden made when he was in Israel, when he said that he hoped they would not make the mistake we had made in 2001 after 9/11, and that we had got ourselves into lots of difficulties as a result. He is a very wise man, President Biden.
What my noble friend Lord Reid said in his speech is right. Although Israel is fully justified in taking whatever military action it wants to destroy Hamas— I agree that it is fully justified—it is going to be a pretty horrendous thing. I do not know quite know what can be done about that. I hope that the Israelis will support humanitarian aid for the Palestinians as much as possible. It is very important for them to make clear to the world that this is a fight against Hamas, not against the Palestinians. They must do their utmost—and we should be urging them to do their utmost. They must also adhere, as I believe they do, to the highest standards in warfare to try to minimise violence, but it is going to be pretty horrible and ghastly.
The big question will be how we prevent this turning into a much wider Middle East conflagration. I would have thought that the key here is that there has to be a fundamental change of heart on the Israeli side, particularly of Prime Minister Netanyahu, towards the legitimacy of the Palestinian position. They have got to come up with a new initiative that demonstrates real commitment to a two-state solution. They have got to see how they can get the friends that Israel has made in the Arab world to be guarantors of that two-state solution, and they have to make it look as though this time they are determined to make it real.
I believe that reconciliation is possible. We have seen examples in the world that others have quoted earlier in this debate. The one that I remember personally is when I was attending a dinner in Northern Ireland at which Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley Jr were cracking jokes with each other a few years after all the awful violence that there had been in Northern Ireland. Reconciliation is possible. Yes, Israel must fight to defend itself, but it must also show that it has the generosity of spirit to build a viable long-term solution.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, when I spoke in a debate in this House on Israel and Palestine just over three years ago, I said I believed:
“The safety and security of Israel is … critical not only for the Israeli people but for the world at large”.—[Official Report, 27/2/20; col. 355.]
After the horrors of the Holocaust and the centuries of prejudice, pogroms and expulsions, to which we must now add the barbarism of 7 October, the ability of the people of Israel to live in safety and security in their own democratic state is, to my mind, essential to the values of a liberal international order.
That safety and security, as we know, was shattered on 7 October in the most brutal and inhumane manner imaginable by the terror group Hamas: young people slain by the hundreds at a music festival, civilians gunned down or burned to death in their homes, babies brutally murdered in their cribs, and the terrifying footage of Jewish people—citizens of Israel and countries around the world—seized, paraded before the cameras and dragged away to an unknown fate. I know how those images impacted on me. I can only begin to imagine their impact on Israeli citizens and Jewish people around the world—the worst outrage and greatest act of inhumanity against Jewish people since the Holocaust. On that Saturday, I was in touch with a friend sheltering in a bomb shelter in Israel. She later told me that every one of her children knew a teen who had been killed.
In carrying out its attack and in continuing to hold hostages, Hamas is in violation of every international law and of every value that we should hold dear. Those hostages, as other noble Lords have said, must be released unconditionally and immediately. It is beyond me that there are those who could not find it in themselves to unequivocally condemn Hamas after these outrages. That anyone, regardless of their views on Israel and Palestine—and like the noble Lord, Lord Austin, and many others in this House, I have always supported the creation of a Palestinian state—would actually seek to justify such grotesque brutality remains utterly shocking, as does the wave of anti-Semitism that has been witnessed in this country in recent days.
For as long as I can remember, I have felt an affinity with Israelis and Palestinians. My father was an emissary to the then Anglican Archbishop of Jerusalem, George Appleton, in the late 1960s and early 1970s; in fact, he baptised me. In that role my father travelled extensively in the region and, until his death earlier this year, he never ceased in his passionate advocacy for a peace that would allow both Israelis and Palestinians to live in security in their own states—a passion that he imparted to me.
I have been privileged to visit Israel with the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel with my noble friend Lord Palmer and other colleagues. I am proud to count myself as a friend of Israel and as a friend of Palestine. In fact, I do not believe that you can truly be one without being the other, just as I do not believe that long-term security can exist for either Israelis or Palestinians until it exists for both.
In the face of the barbarous assault on its citizens, Israel has every right in law and morality to take action to eliminate the threat to its people from Hamas. The issue at stake is not whether Israel has that right but how it exercises it in the manner most likely to prevent avoidable civilian death and secure the long-term safety and security of both Israeli and Palestinian people. Whatever the outcome of this war, at the end of it Israelis and Palestinians will have to live side by side. Israel will have to put aside the dangerous delusion that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to suggest—that Israel could live in security without justice also for Palestinians.
In the immediate moment, Israel needs a military strategy to successfully eliminate Hamas terror. That will be hard enough but, even more importantly, it needs a strategy for how it proceeds at the end of the war. It needs a strategy for peace. After the 1967 war, Israel’s founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, speaking in the Knesset, said:
“our standing in the world will be determined not by our so-called material riches, and not by our military's bravery, but by the moral virtue of our undertaking”.
In the midst of such horror and so many terrible dilemmas for Israeli decision-makers, it is essential that Israel heeds those words. The attachment that many of us have to Israel is precisely because it holds itself to different standards from other regimes in the region. It is essential that, in its response to Hamas, it upholds those standards, abides by international law and allows sufficient humanitarian assistance to reach the civilians of Gaza, who are also victims of Hamas brutality and are suffering devastating hardship.
It is also critical that the Israeli Government act decisively against those settlers in the West Bank who are unleashing violence on Palestinians that has left many innocent Palestinians dead. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said in his powerful speech, every life is precious, and every one of the thousands of deaths of innocent civilians is a tragic loss for mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters.
I support our Government in having stood with Israel in these days of terror, and I fully accept that Israel cannot live in safety with Hamas in control of Gaza. But neither will it live in safety unless the Israeli and Palestinian leadership recognise that, after the war, they must both have the courage to throw aside extremists and make the compromises necessary to deliver a just and lasting peace.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his opening remarks and all noble Lords who have spoken. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Oates. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I declare my interests as a British Jew, an adviser to the Chief Rabbinate Trust and a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel and the Jewish Leadership Council.
Every day I grieve for the suffering and death of Israelis and Palestinians, and I pray for the hostages. Hamas murder squads, claiming to represent the Palestinian people, invaded Israel with the express purpose of killing, torturing or kidnapping civilians. I never would have believed that we would witness a pogrom against Jews in my lifetime. My family was nearly all wiped out by anti-Semitic hatred in the 1930s and 1940s. To then witness these murders being supported, celebrated and glorified by Palestinians in Gaza and their supporters around the globe has shaken me to the core. “Why?” I ask myself again and again. Do these Hamas terrorists really have the support of the Palestinian or Arab majority? They were elected, and opinion polls suggest they may still have support.
Those who glorify Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hizb ut-Tahrir and their ilk are a threat not just to Israel or to Jews but to all of us, as my noble friend Lord Harrington said. Israel has always wanted to live in peace with its neighbours, but a first step to achieving that must be to have a partner on the Palestinian side wanting the same. Peace is a duet, not a solo.
As my noble friend Lord Leigh said, Israel left Gaza, dismantled the settlements and wanted the Palestinians to have a prosperous future, and all it has received in return is terror. If the Palestinian people do not really support the actions of Hamas but are frightened to speak up, as ordinary Germans were in the 1930s while the Nazis increasingly threatened Jews, Israel must have the courage to rid them of Hamas once and for all. If Hamas really does have majority support, Israel must anyway destroy further Hamas threats and help the Palestinian people recognise that extremism brings only misery, not a better life.
Israel and Jews are not the Palestinian people’s enemies, but what can Israel do to achieve peace? Since 7 October, there are those who defend Hamas actions or even blame Israel. As the noble Lord, Lord Austin, said, we are already seeing frightening disinformation, such as videos denying survivors’ accounts.
Israel is the only Jewish state. It has known nothing but rejection by most of its Arab neighbours since its inception, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, explained. As long as Israel’s right to exist is not accepted, what can it do but keep defending itself? If Hamas continues to fire missiles aimed at Israel’s civilians from sites among, next to or directly underneath its own children, what else can Israel do other than warn civilians to leave and then do what it must to stop the attacks, dismantle the rockets and show its people that Jews will not submit to torture and murder, as millions did in the Nazi horrors?
Jews yearn for peace; we pray for it every day. Jews have accepted being expelled from Arab countries where their families had lived for centuries, and have settled elsewhere. This is a bleak time for us as Jews. Are our children safe on our streets, in our universities and in other western countries, as the plague of anti-Semitism has resurfaced? Support for Hamas and Palestinian fighters is a threat to us all, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said—not just Jews. If Islamic extremists are not defeated, we are all in danger. If brutal oppression succeeds in eradicating Israel, the only westernised democracy, and, as others have said, if Russia succeeds in defeating Ukraine, our way or life, our freedoms and our values are all in peril.
Hamas has never honoured international humanitarian law. If Israel cannot protect its citizens by ridding Gaza of the Hamas rockets—made, by the way, with some of the water pipes provided for Gazans by western aid—a new standard for horrific assaults against Jews is established in our time. International commentators already seemingly consider the repeated rocket barrages from Gaza into Israel as somehow acceptable, on the apparent justification that its Iron Dome can shoot them down, even though civilians are still killed.
This cannot persist. Decades of wishful thinking that Hamas’s charter calling to kill Jews is just rhetoric has been a delusion. The Palestinian leadership is anti-Semitic: Mahmoud Abbas has repeated anti-Semitic canards and blamed the Jews for the Holocaust because of, apparently, their social role. He rewards Palestinian terrorists for attacking Israelis. They just want Israel to disappear. Well, Israel cannot disappear. Jews have no other homeland. Israel must defend its civilians against missile attacks and targeted torture.
I pray for all in the region, but I have no doubt that Israel must and will do its utmost to pave the way for a peaceful two-state solution. Am Yisrael Chai—may Israel and its people live.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his wise words in opening the debate. I join others in calling on him and the Government to use their influence on Qatar to ensure the release of the hostages. We also need to record our thanks to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent for the very positive role they have played.
There has been a lot of talk about proportionality in the law on self-defence. I refer to the words that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, used a few days ago on the test of proportionality. It does not mean that the defensive force has to be equal to the force used in the armed attack. Proportionality means that you can use force that is proportionate to the defensive objective, which is to stop, to repel and to prevent further attacks.
Israel has described its war aims as the destruction of Hamas’s capability. From a legal perspective, these war aims are consistent with proportionality in the law of self-defence, given what Hamas says it does and what Hamas has done and continues to do.
Asking a state that is acting in self-defence to agree to a ceasefire before its lawful defensive objectives have been met is, in effect, asking that state to stop defending itself. For such calls to be reasonable and credible, they must be accompanied by a concrete proposal setting out how Israel’s legitimate defensive goals against Hamas will be met through other means. It is not an answer to say that Israel has to conclude a peace treaty, because Hamas is not interested in a peace treaty.
Proportionality also applies in the law that governs the conduct of hostilities, not only in self-defence. The law of armed conflict requires that in every attack posing a risk to civilian life, that risk must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage that is anticipated. That rule does not mean, even when scrupulously observed, that civilians will not tragically lose their lives in an armed conflict. The law of armed conflict, at its best, can mitigate the horrors of war but it cannot eliminate them. The great challenge in this conflict is that Hamas is the kind of belligerent that cynically exploits these rules by putting civilians under its control at risk and even using them to seek immunity for its military operations, military equipment and military personnel. An analysis of the application of the rules on proportionality in targeting in this conflict must always begin with this fact.
There has also been some discussion about siege warfare. The UK manual of the law of armed conflict, reflecting the Government’s official legal position—it is a Ministry of Defence document—says:
“Siege is a legitimate method of warfare … It would be unlawful to besiege an undefended town since it could be occupied without resistance”.
Gaza is not an undefended town. It is true that obligations apply to the besieging forces when civilians are caught within the area that is being encircled, and those obligations include agreeing to the passage of humanitarian relief by third parties. But it is not correct to say that encircling an area with civilians in it is not permitted by the laws of war.
A further point that concerns the laws of war is also of particular relevance to the British Government’s practice. It has already been mentioned that the Government have taken the view that Gaza remains under Israeli occupation, even though Israel pulled out in 2005. The traditional view until 2005 was that occupation required physical presence in the territory. That view is consistent with Article 42 of the Hague regulations of 1907, which states that a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the occupying power. Again, it is also the view taken by the UK manual of the law of armed conflict, which reflects the UK’s official legal position and states that occupation ceases as soon as the occupying power evacuates the area. The European Court of Human Rights, in its jurisprudence, has also adopted a similar approach to occupation. So I have always been rather baffled by the British Government’s position on this issue, which, as far as I know, has not changed. Yes, it is true that Israel has exercised significant control over the airspace and in the maritime areas, but even as a matter of plain geography it takes two—Israel and Egypt —to control the land access points to Gaza.
More fundamentally, it is Hamas that has been responsible for the government and administration of Gaza. I appreciate that this is a legal matter on which the Minister may not want to respond immediately but it is an important one, because the legal fiction that Israel was still the occupying power under the laws of armed conflict has been relentlessly exploited by Hamas to blame Israel for everything, while using the effective control that it has over the territory, the people and the resources to wage war.
On a final note, I would like to say something briefly on the way in which the war is being reported. When a serious allegation is made, particularly one that could constitute a war crime, the immediate response of the law-abiding belligerent will be to say, “We are investigating”. The non-law-abiding belligerent, by contrast, will forthwith blame the other side and even provide surprisingly precise casualty figures. The duty to investigate is one of the most important ones in armed conflict. What happened in the way in which the strike on the hospital was reported is that the side that professes no interest whatever in complying with the laws of armed conflict was rewarded with the headlines that it was seeking.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I share with others my thanks to the Minister for his excellent introduction to this debate. I also thank colleagues for their contributions on a subject which so many of us feel so passionately and deeply about.
The Hamas seizure of hostages during its murderous rampage through Israeli border communities is a horrific act and contrary to international law. The types of hostages seized, as well as the murders and rapes committed of civilians, proves that Hamas’s claims that its actions were about resistance are lies. Leaving aside the fact that the holding of hostages is a crime in itself, Hamas is breaking international humanitarian law by refusing medical care to the hostages or allowing a humanitarian corridor to them. As many other speakers have tonight, I ask His Majesty’s Government to make every representation to the Palestinian authorities and other interlocutors to Hamas, such as Qatar, that the hostages should be immediately freed. Failing that, further negotiations around humanitarian corridors to Gaza must include aid being provided to the hostages.
The scenes on British streets over the past two weeks have been nothing short of disgraceful. While nobody wishes to restrict the right to protest in this country, and we all value the principles of free speech, it is quite a different matter to allow the spreading of hate and the glorification of terrorism, as has quite obviously been occurring in some portions of pro-Palestinian marches. It is telling, for example, that the first pro-Palestinian marches assembled on our streets on 7 October, when the only activity that had happened in Israel to that date had been the massacre of Jewish civilians by Hamas terrorists. The dead had not yet been identified and Israel had not responded, yet certain sections of the United Kingdom population felt that they should come out on to the streets, not in sympathy with the victims but seemingly celebrating their murder. Something has gone badly wrong in our society for that to be considered a normative action.
Since then, calls for jihad and intifada have somehow been explained away by police language experts as not being meant as violent. “Free, free Palestine, from the river to the sea” has been suggested to be offensive only if directed at a Jewish person, rather than chanted generally. We have been told to believe that these blood-curdling cries on British streets somehow relate to spiritual struggle. This is in complete contravention of the view of the average British citizen, who rightly concludes that those shouting such slogans after the grim massacre of Jewish civilians might well be intending to show support for such actions and could even inspire further ones. Meanwhile, marchers have also referred to the rhetoric of the Battle of Khaybar, which of course celebrates the massacre of a Jewish Arabian tribe on account of its alleged betrayal of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. There can be no doubt what suggestions of repeating this could mean in the contemporary context.
The police have been made to look like fools on account of their attempts to convince themselves that black is white and white is black, to avoid making arrests in the name of preserving public order. The net effect has been to surrender the streets to the baying mob crying for the armies of Islam to re-conquer Palestine, in the apparent belief that this is a safer course of action than enforcing British law and supporting British public safety. The consequences of this threaten to be calamitous. Already, our spy chiefs have warned that this tragic conflict risks increasing the threat of terrorism in the United Kingdom. What message does the police backing off from enforcing the simplest of public order ordinances therefore send to those who might be inspired to carry out a terrorist attack?
Our policing authorities need to get a grip and restore confidence in their abilities to keep the streets safe, in the eyes of both a despairing general public and those who might be thinking of pushing the envelope still further in what they might be able to get away with. We should be under no illusions. British Jewish communities may be the first victims of the extremes seen thus far with worrying regularity in these marches, but they will not be the last. We are all in the firing line of such extremism and we ignore it at our peril.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I am sure the House will agree when I say that this is a debate which we wish we did not need to have. The world would be in an awfully better place had the terrible events of 7 October not happened and so many families would be spared heartbreak today. But we have been dragged here by the horrific barbarism of Hamas in committing murders, torture, rapes and abductions of an unprecedented scale and nature, killing more Jews in a single day than on any day in history since the end of the Holocaust, and doing so in an almost unimaginable horror inflicted on innocent civilians—men, women, children and even babies.
We also know that Hamas is no friend of the Palestinian people. It has oppressed ordinary Palestinians in Gaza. It has diverted resources, which are much needed in Gaza, towards military attacks on Israel. It has literally rained bombs down on its own people and has used, and continues to use, civilians as human shields. Hamas is simultaneously a barbaric bully and a craven coward. We need to call out Hamas for what it is. No more euphemisms: these are evil terrorists, instigating a pogrom on the Israeli people.
Like everyone in this House, I think, I want a long-term solution for the Middle East. We all crave peace and I join others in saying that, in the long run, a two-state solution is probably best for the area. However, in rightly seeking that long-term peace, we must avoid the temptation of trying to find short-term fixes. Solutions which leave Hamas with the capability of simply striking back at Israel at will are ones that will only store up more death and destruction in the long run. Hamas is an organisation that is not part of the solution. It is not part of peace and it seeks to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. It is an obstacle to peace and to having a long-term better way forward for everyone, Israeli and Palestinian alike.
While our focus is rightly on Israel and Gaza, and particularly the plight of the 200-plus hostages still being held by Hamas, there are also repercussions beyond the boundaries of Israel and Gaza, not least in our own country. For the Jewish communities in the United Kingdom, most have family relations or friends who live in Israel, and many know the victims of the events of 7 October. They are, in many cases, deeply concerned and scared today. So while it is right that every community and individual in the United Kingdom, of whatever background, should be safe from terror, fear, intimidation and violence, we must keep uppermost in our minds the Jewish community. They are frightened, in particular, when they see tens of thousands of people come on to the streets of the United Kingdom, many giving implicit cover, and some implicit support, for Hamas, with the kind of anti-Semitic, hateful rhetoric that the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has explained so clearly and which has led to a wide range of complaints. We need to see the police and courts deal with this in a robust manner.
It is also the case that this has not come from a blank page. Earlier this year, with other parliamentarians, I visited facilities which showed the extent to which Jewish properties have to be monitored from a security point of view for their own protection—and this was at a time when there was relative peace in the Middle East. Perhaps most shocking from that visit—I will not be too explicit in the details, for obvious reasons—was when we visited a Jewish primary school where children were being taken through drills on a regular basis of the preparations they needed to take in the event of intruders. I do not wish to go into the details of those procedures, as that would be utterly counterproductive, but noble Lords should reflect on that for a moment. These are five year-olds and older, having to live with this as part of their lives in the United Kingdom in 2023. That is not an isolated example; it is all too redolent of the experience of so many Jewish people in this country. This is why it is right to commit ourselves to long-term peace. It is also right that we send out a clear message that we stand by Israel and the Jewish people of the United Kingdom and beyond.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, Sikh teachings remind us that conflict arises when we fail to recognise that we are all members of the same one human family, with equal rights and dignity. That sentiment is echoed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that ignoring human rights can lead to suffering and lasting hatred.
In the 1930s and 1940s, Jews were vilified, not only in Germany but in much of Europe. The word “Jew” was used as a term of abuse. At school, I was frequently called a Jew by those who wished to hurt me. Then we saw film footage of atrocities in Belsen and other extermination camps. I have visited Auschwitz and seen evidence of the unbelievable cruelty shown to those considered lesser beings. Jews suffered horrendously in the Holocaust and from the cruel anti-Semitism of Europe. Some moved to Palestine to build a homeland where they could live free from persecution.
Despite clear promises made to the indigenous Palestinians that their rights would be safeguarded, many were forcibly moved from land that they had inhabited for centuries. Their anger and bitterness have been made worse by subsequent events and broken promises, such as that of the UN for a separate Palestinian state. The world has also turned a blind eye to illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank. According to a report by Amnesty International, Palestinians in Israel live in apartheid conditions, with discrimination in education, land ownership, housing and employment. Gaza has suffered an Israeli blockade of food and supplies for the last 16 years.
However, the deplorable and callous treatment of Palestinians cannot justify the barbaric attack by Hamas on the State of Israel and the taking of hostages. But the West’s unquestioning support for Israel and indifference to the suffering of Palestinians has fuelled anger and resentment, making any genuine peace settlement far harder.
In its recent report, Amnesty International reminds us that the Israeli blockading of food, fuel, electricity and water to Gaza, and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, schools and hospitals, are crimes against humanity. It also refers to what it considers compelling evidence of Israel’s use of white phosphorus, which can burn to the bone. Why the silence of the UK Government and the western media? If this banned substance had been used by Russians in Ukraine, there would have been banner news headlines about a chilling disregard for human life. Now we have President Biden saying that the indiscriminate onslaught on Gaza should continue until all hostages have been released. Their lives are important, but so are the lives of 2 million inhabitants of Gaza. To rephrase an appropriate line from Shakespeare, “If a Palestinian is cut, does he not bleed?”
Israel’s response is not proportionate. It is the cruel, inhumane, collective punishment of some 2 million already deprived and starving people—a collective punishment not seen since the Second World War. The West needs to change 20th-century mindsets of friend, foe and strategic advantage to meet the new challenges of the 21st century. We have a responsibility to nudge both Israelis and Palestinians to look to common interests and a respect for human rights for both Jews and Palestinians.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Before my friend the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that the Israel Defense Forces categorically and specifically denied using white phosphorus, and would he care to withdraw that suggestion?
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
They have, as one would expect, but is there any evidence? Is Amnesty International deliberately telling untruths?
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, I am heartbroken and bitterly angry at the heinous, profoundly evil crimes committed in Israel on 7 October by the terrorists Hamas. Killing innocent civilians, butchering children, torturing, beheading, burning victims to death and seizing some 222 innocent people, adult and children alike, to be dragged into Gaza as hostages, is intolerable and in clear violation of international law. All this was compounded by sending victims’ families photographs and messages showing their loved ones suffering. This is not the action of civilised people but of maligned individuals led by the corrupt leaders of Hamas, safely positioned far away from these crimes, encouraging and cajoling their disciples to act in this barbaric way.
Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention prohibits
“murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture … taking of hostages … outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”.
Hamas has broken every aspect of this convention. No wonder Israel wants to crush Hamas so that never again can it be a threat, not just to Israel but to civilisation itself. We should have no doubt: if this evil succeeds in Israel, it will spread throughout the Middle East and beyond. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Emirates know this too well and know who is behind it: Iran is financing this terrorism to support its own ambitions in the region, and that threatens us all.
Last Sunday, a peaceful vigil was held in Trafalgar Square calling for Hamas to release the hostages it has taken. There was solidarity and empathy with those poor people locked away from their loved ones. By contrast, on Saturday, as we have heard, in a massive march across London there was no concern for the hostages or condemnation of Hamas. There was just hatred—hatred for Israel—and calls for jihad and Israel’s destruction. I am pleased that the Government are challenging the legality of this behaviour.
We should have no doubt: this is anti-Semitism in its ugliest form. Since the Hamas attack on Israel, the number of anti-Semitic acts just in London has risen by 1,350%. This is a horrific statistic, and we must stand together to stamp out anti-Semitism and unreservedly make it clear to all that such conduct and behaviour are totally unacceptable in our wonderful country. I applaud and thank the Prime Minister and the Government, and other political leaders, for their stand against terrorism and support for Israel.
In the days ahead, however, when almost certainly Israel will step up its fight against terrorism, that support will be tested. I fear that there will be civilian casualties as Hamas hides among the people of Gaza and behind the innocent Palestinian human shields that it has created. It is a fundamental principle of international law that gives the right of self-defence to states under armed attack—and Israel was attacked earlier this month, as we have heard and seen. That response must be proportionate, and Israel fully understands that in targeting Hamas, not Palestinian citizens. No country at war takes the steps that Israel takes, through pamphleting and broadcasts, to warn of imminent attacks as it defends itself from terrorism. I hope that is recognised by all its friends.
Hamas took power in Gaza in 2006, supposedly through an election process. Even if that was a result of corruption, as has been alleged, there is no doubt that a great number of Palestinians supported that takeover and have now realised what a mistake that was. Hamas has ruled Gaza tyrannically. It is a closed, undemocratic society and opponents are crushed. Those Palestinians who abhor violence, whose ambition is just to live in a peaceful and safe society, are too afraid to raise their voice. We must help them find that voice.
We are in a dark time right now. But it will end and, I hope, Hamas will be crushed. Even though it is hard to look forward, that is exactly what we must do. Assuming that Israel is successful in crushing Hamas, as I hope, it must be magnanimous in its victory and work tirelessly to create a new Gaza, one free from terrorism, where its population can find peace and success and live normal lives, as I hope the majority aspire to do. The starting point is to find new Palestinian leaders—a Palestinian Nelson Mandela has been suggested in this House; if only we could find such a person—who share that ambition and whose aim is not to destroy Israel but, instead, to build a new Gaza, one that offers freedom, hope and prosperity to its population.
This cannot happen without tremendous support from the international community, led by the US, the UK and the EU, working with the key players in the region, notably Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This takes me back to Iran. While the present regime is in power, it would be foolish to expect any change of attitude towards Israel. Nevertheless, only international pressure and increased sanctions might dull Iran’s enthusiasm for that hatred. It is a long shot, but we have to try.
I am delighted that four hostages have now been released by Hamas but, frankly, this is a cynical attempt to gain international sympathy. If, even now—and despite my comments today—Hamas wants to try to find a peaceful solution, it must, as a first step, unconditionally release all the hostages.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel was more than a war crime. This anti-Jewish pogrom was dripping with sadism.
Do noble Lords remember the horror when we saw film some years ago of so-called Jihadi John and the ISIS Beatles using swords to behead hostages such as David Haines and James Foley—the cruelty of it? We knew then that this was not about the number of hostages killed—a handful that we know of in that instance—but we viscerally understood that this was an off-the-scale incident in terms of depravity. Those sickening shockwaves are felt a thousand times over in response to the 7 October killing spree, in which Hamas butchers recorded themselves boasting of their torture and violence and gloating over the desecration of naked dead bodies.
Yet, ever since then, self-styled progressives in the UK, Europe and the US have insisted that the evil of the atrocity emanates from Israel, presenting the real victims as civilians in Gaza. In a grotesque distortion of political categories, events on 7 October are being portrayed as some sort of justifiable resistance to oppression. Too many—especially, shamefully on the left—seem to be stuck in the past, imagining that today’s Palestinian armed resistance is the same as earlier national liberation movements fighting against colonialism. Indeed, Green Party MSP Maggie Chapman responded to the Hamas attack by posting:
“The OPPRESSED are fighting back … Don’t let the Western media fool you into thinking it’s terrorism, this is decolonization”.
Let me be clear: no, it is not.
As someone who has supported Palestinian rights for decades, I find disgusting the suggestion that Hamas is any kind of a national liberation movement trying to free Palestine. In reality, it is an anti-Semitic death cult hell-bent on establishing a global Islamic caliphate. How do I know that? Anyone who reads the Hamas constitution and watches its propaganda will see that there is not an iota of aspiration to democratic freedoms for the Palestinians or for anyone else in its tracts. Yet, still, in the media, in mass demonstrations and on all online platforms, swathes of right-minded people are queuing up to point the finger at Israel for bringing the massacre on itself, amid an embarrassed silence about Hamas’s crimes.
It is hard to explain such moral disorientation. As one commentator noted, those who collaborated with the Nazis often claimed they did not know that Hitler’s henchmen were planning to exterminate the Jewish people. Today’s progressive apologists in the West have no such excuse, as Islamists flaunt their desire to eliminate the Jews, and yet, still, too many look away, ignoring these inconvenient truths.
Such attitudes present our society with a problem. Beyond the military battles in the Middle East, we have a domestic battle of ideas to fight and some difficult questions to answer. Thousands of British and European artists issued an open letter accusing Israel—Israel, no less—of “unprecedented cruelty” in its dealings with Gaza. Let us ask them why they did not write a similar open letter on the unprecedented cruelty of the Hamas pogrom—although, sadly, it was not unprecedented for the Jews.
We have to question those who angrily demonstrated against the accused Israeli perpetrator of the horrific bombing of the hospital in Gaza: now that all the evidence suggests that it was a misfired Islamic Jihad missile, why are those “progressive humanitarians” not out on the streets as we speak, expressing righteous fury against these Palestinian civilian killers?
We also have to ask how we explain that we now have open support for radical Islam on UK city streets? Why have we allowed it to grow unchecked for years, with concerns quashed as Islamophobia? We also have to ask why so many students and young people see all Jews as part of a privileged oppressor class and why we have allowed the toxic influence of identity politics and its discourse of white privilege, of which Jews are collectively seen as the epitome, to grow unchallenged. Why have so many institutions, such as universities, buckled in the face of this identitarian ideology of competitive victimhood, which gives anyone claiming the label of oppressed victimhood a collective pass? We have to ask why diversity advocates, who are usually hypersensitive to alleged racist microaggressions, such as using phrases like “blacklisting”, suddenly become deaf and dumb while marching alongside groups of radicalised youth shouting, “Allahu akbar” and anti-Semitic dog whistles.
Finally, we as legislators have to ask how we should respond at this pivotal moment, now that the curtain has been pulled back on this new anti-Semitism. One plea I will make to us all is that we should resist the siren calls for more hate speech laws, for people to be sacked for wrongthink and for arrests to be made of those using “offensive” and “dangerous” slogans, however repugnant or hateful. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, whose excellent speech I agreed with—apart from on this question—I do not think we need more laws to solve these problems. Even in the few years that I have been in this place, we have passed a plethora of draconian public order and speech-restricting laws.
But I fear that a public clamour for more restrictions is likely in response to what could be described as, at best, “eccentric” policing priorities, so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. The police can turn up at your door if you misgender someone, they can arrest you for praying silently in the wrong place and they can treat a terrified autistic pupil as a criminal for accidentally kicking a Koran, yet they passively stand by as pro-Gaza protesters deface public monuments, scale scaffolding on government buildings and allow people to run riot on the streets.
But, despite such institutional torpor, eroding free speech is never the answer. We need to face the pernicious cultural problems I have discussed face-on. If we are to take the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for more and better education seriously—and if we are to win young hearts and minds away from the new identitarian anti-Semitism, and to offer the young some moral clarity—we need more, not fewer, difficult arguments in the public sphere.
We have illustrated the importance of such public debate today, and it is a credit to the noble Lords who have spoken that that has happened. I hope that we can move forward without compromising our commitment to freedom.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, it is no easy matter to speak after so many noble Lords have spoken so well in today’s telling debate, led by my noble friend the Minister, whose speech was as moving as it was resolute—I thank him for it.
The Hamas attack on Israel, the massacre that followed and the taking of hostages, including babies and young children, marked a new phase in a war. As we have heard again today from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others, Hamas is committed, by its founding charter, to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in the whole of historic Palestine. Yes, an update in 2017 suggested that Hamas might accept the 1949 to 1967 borders, if this was the result of consensus, but it rejected Zionism and the Zionist project, stating its preference for establishing an Islamist Palestinian state from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea and from the border with Lebanon to the southern Israeli city of Eilat.
The Hamas terrorist war, like its ideology, combines the potency of Palestinian nationalism and the power of Muslim fundamentalism. In this war, ends and means are one: the destruction of Israel from the river to the sea. It is an end financially and militarily backed by Iran, most recently in its supply of rockets and training. As noble Lords have pointed out, Iran is also fighting to establish its own hegemony in the whole region. To that end, it is willing to make a marriage of convenience with the Sunni terrorist group Hamas—the military capabilities of which it has helped to develop—and a marriage of love with the Shiite Hezbollah towards the northern border with Lebanon.
I urge my noble friend the Minister and the Government to remain steadfast, with other western powers, in their support of Israel to defend itself and secure the release of the hostages. Unless Hamas is eliminated, not only can there be no peace for Israel but there can be no peace, prosperity or freedom for the unfortunate Palestinians who have been subject to Hamas rule since 2007. Nor will there be any stability in the Middle East or security in the world.
Few of us will not be moved by the condition of Gaza, but any let-up in Israel’s pursuit of the terrorists would be the wrong course. The destruction of Hamas is a prerequisite for the restoration of stability to the territory and for allowing the people of Gaza to live their lives under democratic rule. It will also show Iran and its proxies that the Middle East is not a fief to be won by terrorist jihad to destroy the state of Israel.
As we have heard, that state was established in 1948 to offer to Jewish people safety within national borders, free of fear of pogroms, concentration camps and murder in the wake of Hitler’s attempt to exterminate them. Although it is often said in debate that one can be against the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic, given history, that cannot be so. Of course, any Israeli Government can be criticised for their policies, but doubting whether the state and its people have a right to exist is an offence to not just Israelis but Jews the world over.
The particular responsibility of the UK Government is not merely to protect their citizens but to allow them to lead their daily lives without fear. I urge my noble friend the Minister to reconsider whether the law is adequate for this purpose—the present Commissioner of the Met raised this point before he was appointed.
The pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London on the night that the news of the massacre broke and over two Saturdays have, to put it mildly, descended into a threatening anti-Semitism. Whatever fine construction the Arabic grammarians of the Metropolitan Police may put on the words, the chant of “Jihad, jihad, jihad” by a crowd waving Palestinian flags is clearly to call a holy war against Israel and to insist that Palestine must stretch from the river to the sea. It is a call for the dispersal of Jews in Israel and the end of that state, if not the murder of present Jewish inhabitants. If that is not anti-Semitism, what is?
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests. I am a director of the UK Abraham Accords Group, I am involved on the boards of companies which have staff and premises in Israel, and I am a board member of a cancer charity and many other organisations.
It is impossible not to describe what has been going on as just simply heartbreaking. I thank the Minister for his absolutely outstanding speech, for the resolve and clarity that he shows and that the Government have shown, for their work in the region and for their full engagement. This is all deeply important. I thank the leader of my party for his clarity and the Front Bench for demonstrating it as well. I am truly humbled to be in this Chamber when we have had such an important and constructive debate with so many significant and thoughtful contributions. I join my voice with those calling for the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages as quickly as possible.
I was in Israel when the rockets started hitting and when the land incursion took place. In fact, I was woken up by my phone which I had set to one of the alerts which tell you if rockets come over. I had it on silent, but it just did not stop vibrating. It woke me at 7 am; my wife had been up since 6.30 am. It was immediately apparently that this was something very, very different. The reason I mention this is that I have kept it vibrating still every day. Every single day I get a reminder of the condition of rockets being fired into Israel and the murderous intent to kill as many people as possible, which has been stopped only by some advanced technology. These happen constantly, and it was almost prescient that just before we started this debate, the most enormous amount of rockets were fired on Israel, including one in an area that I was staying in when I was there on Saturday, which would have given me 90 seconds to get to a bomb shelter.
That issue is still constant. It is also the case that this afternoon, like every day for at least the last 10 days, there have been major incursions with rockets and other things from the northern border. One should not forget the precarious situation and the threats that Israel faces in general, including the attack from Yemen. This is more than just the issue of Gaza. This is what Hamas has wrought: a major form of instability.
I will just reference one other thing, which is that I have always wanted to be involved in the pursuit of peace. I have made much of my time, resources and other things available to the disposal of any initiative that tries to work towards peace, like many in this House. I have never been anything more than a minor supporter in that role. I cannot profess to any particularly significant achievement or role, but I was certainly involved in trying to do as much as we could with the Gaza withdrawal. When it was first mooted in 2004, it was supported widely and overwhelmingly in Israel, especially after the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004. There were initiatives here. In fact, we had an Israeli and Palestinian initiative, supported by the Government here, that helped to build some of the conditions to make that work. I worked with a number of people in the wider community on trying to make sure that, when Israel withdrew, there was significant building. The Emirati companies were very keen to invest in that. One of those that did go over to invest a huge amount was chased out of Gaza. We have led to this terrible succession of things that we all know of so well, leading to Hamas’s takeover in 2007, which of course came after the abduction of Gilad Shalit. One should remember that Hamas has always been trying to undermine that situation.
So where have we ended up with that deep desire to create peace? It has trapped Israel in military strikes, economic pressures and isolation as the only strategy to try and deal with Gaza. Gaza has not had the economic success or benefits linked to peace, nor the security that it would have wished for. We have ended up in a situation which is far worse. For those of us who always try the march towards peace, the steps back that can be taken are very severe, and we must consider that. Of course, there is no accident, in my view, in the timing of why these events took place. It was because we were making more progress than we have ever done in last few years on the diplomatic side with the Saudi initiative.
We must address the inescapable point that, for as long as Hamas remains a force, the cause of peace will be the profound casualty. Hamas in Gaza is like having ISIS on your border. It has had a destructive legacy on peace from Oslo: suicide bombers, child soldiers—it does not matter what it is, Hamas has always been the great underminer. Our core mistake has been to believe that a Hamas presence is possible and consistent with any peace initiative. It is not. We must address it. We must address the malign influence of Iran which has emboldened them all. We must urge the regional actors who are part of the solution to do more, and for Qatar to do more to try and put pressure, not just on the hostage situation, but for Hamas to be more engaged.
The central unarguable point is that Hamas is the problem, and everyone has to choose which side they are on: peace or conflict. People must understand that Hamas is not the Palestinians. Those who argue in the media, at demonstrations or elsewhere, who provide succour or support for Hamas, its methods or policies, who justify or explain away its actions or even recite or chant the politics and phrases from its hateful charter do nothing for peace. I fear the reality is we have to accept that when we talk about a horizon for peace, after the war, or commitments to two states, all of which I profoundly agree with, it is unlikely to be feasible unless Hamas can be reduced to the husk that ISIS is. We need the right coalition of willing partners to make that happen.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests in the register, particularly as executive chairman and director of the Changing Character of War Centre at Pembroke College, Oxford.
It is very difficult to approach this debate calmly. One might argue that there is no reason to be calm. Horrible, frightening things have been happening in Israel and Gaza and it is natural to rage and wish for vengeance and to identify more with one side of the conflict than the other. Like other noble Lords, I condemn without reservation the horrible terrorism of Hamas. I appreciate how, for Jewish people, the Hamas atrocity means more than even the awful killing that has just taken place, because it reflects memories of the Holocaust and historic anti-Semitic pogroms.
I also identify very strongly with my Christian co-religionists, who hoped to be safe when they sheltered in the third oldest Christian church in the world but found no sanctuary there. Dozens of them were killed by an IDF missile. Are those Christians simply to be regarded as collateral damage? Are they not human beings too? Surely ordinary people, old and young, living in their own place, whether in Israel or Gaza, should be able to enjoy peace, freedom and security, be they Jewish Israelis, Palestinian Muslims or Christians. Communities should not be imprisoned behind fences, starved of food, medicines and water, and subject to collective punishment. This is not only wrong but not a defence of Israel and the values of Israel.
One of the lessons of recent times is that armies with massive military capability less often win wars than they did in the past, whether in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Syria. Hamas more closely resembles the Taliban than al-Qaeda or ISIS because it is a governing authority that has run a defined territory for some years. That should give us pause for thought. Some 20 years after US troops entered Kabul, the Taliban were back in charge of Afghanistan and getting the full support of China. Many billions of US dollars were spent in Afghanistan, many lives were lost on all sides and the standing of America was severely damaged in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Israel is in an even more difficult situation—a small country in a dangerous neighbourhood embarking on a ground invasion of Gaza that will not only result in the deaths of many ordinary Palestinian people and Israeli soldiers but will likely open up a war on other fronts, notably in the north with Hezbollah, backed by Iran.
One of the first IDF soldiers to die was Ido, the son-in-law of my old friends, Robi and Charlotte Friedman. He left a young wife, Noga, and three young children. The proposed ground offensive will be a death mission for many hundreds or perhaps thousands of other young Israeli soldiers, and its aims are unachievable. Even if every Hamas operative in Gaza was killed, it would not address the membership of Hamas and other extremist groups in the West Bank, Lebanon and Jordan. Indeed, it is already acting as a recruiting sergeant for extremist groups across the world, including—as colleagues have noted—in this country, where we are seeing increasing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
Is there a considered Israeli plan? Has there been serious consideration of the consequences? The US military does not think so. As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, going in to deal with well-armed terrorists occupying 300 miles of tunnels is one thing; how to get out again is another. Even before the ground offensive starts, the United States and the United Kingdom are finding that European allies are asking questions about the strategy and calling on Israel to hold back, not only to protect the hostages and provide humanitarian aid, but to give time for reflection about the wisdom of such an attack.
I have been warning for years in your Lordships’ House that we are sliding into a third global conflict, and this development in Israel and Gaza is not hermetically sealed from the Russia-Ukraine war, where Iran also plays a background role. The causes and consequences of this conflict are not just local; they are international.
While I was, like everyone else, shocked by the savagery of the Hamas attack and disturbed by the indiscriminate nature of the IDF bombing, I was not surprised. I have visited Israel frequently over many years, and in recent times I could see how the ill treatment of Palestinians was creating a powder keg. Do we really think that there is no relationship at all between the replacement in 2022 of the most broad-based Government in the history of Israel with the most hard-line Government ever and the worst terrorist attack in the history of the State of Israel the following year? Understanding consequences is absolutely not justifying them, but not only have we seen hundreds of thousands of Israelis coming out week after week, month after month, to protest against the Netanyahu/Smotrich/Ben-Gvir coalition, but we know that now more than 80% of Israelis themselves blame that Government for their contribution to the current catastrophe.
That is why I was somewhat dismayed that our Prime Minister and President Biden initially appeared, while rightly responding with support for Israeli people in the face of the Hamas atrocity, to offer support to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu whatever he decided to do. They may well have said different things in private and may well have exerted much-needed pressure, but that is not how it looked in public. The demeanour of the two foreign secretaries, Blinken and Cleverly, seemed to find a much more balanced and wiser narrative and one that has made some progress in recent days. I hope from what he said earlier today that we will continue to hear that more thoughtful narrative reflected in the interventions of the Minister we are fortunate to have in this place, not only today but as we move forward.
Moving forward must mean finding a political settlement. There is no military solution and no political solution that does not take account of the needs of Palestinians. I have been involved with this region for many years and no proposal that fails to take account of the political need of the Palestinians will work. I ask His Majesty’s Government to commit themselves in this very difficult circumstance to work for peace. Those who work for peace are often attacked by both sides, but working for peace is the only way to provide a future for our children and grandchildren.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend the Minister for his powerful and obviously heartfelt opening remarks.
As soon as I heard about the vile, racist pogrom perpetrated by Hamas, I WhatsApped a Jewish friend who lives here in London and whom I had got to know on a March of the Living trip to Auschwitz-Birkenau and other concentration camps a few years ago. I told him how sorry I was about the tragic loss of life in Israel. He replied to say that he had already flown out and re-joined his IDF unit the day after Hamas’s horrific, barbaric butchery. To a further WhatsApp, he replied:
““Even though you are far away, your prayers and words of encouragement are felt here”.
We may be far away, but we should know that what we say in this Chamber today will be felt throughout not just our own Jewish community but also in Israel. Our Jewish brothers and sisters need and deserve our support at such an unbearably painful and traumatic time so, like other noble Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity this debate provides to express mine. In doing so, I am mindful that I cannot possibly know how it feels to be the target of such racist, brutal bloodlust—that I cannot possibly appreciate the horror of knowing that over 6 million of your own people were exterminated in industrialised mass murder within living memory. How can any of us who are not Jewish understand what it feels like to know that your own state, Israel, is the only thing standing between you and extermination simply for being Jewish?
In case we are tempted to dismiss such fears as melodramatic almost 80 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, Hamas has reminded us that this is not theory; it is fact. My pilgrimage of remembrance to Auschwitz-Birkenau—where so many members of my late orthopaedic surgeon’s Jewish family were murdered only 79 years ago this summer—reminded me of what happens when we prevaricate, equivocate and wring our hands in the face of anti-Jewish abomination.
We have probably all heard about the Wannsee conference of January 1942 at which the Final Solution fate of millions of Jews across Europe was sealed, but how many of us know about the Évian conference held barely three and a half years earlier to discuss the plight of Germany’s persecuted Jewish population and how the rest of the world could help them? It did not help them; instead, it wrung its hands in sympathy and turned its back on them with tragic consequences.
A few weeks ago, parliamentarians were invited to watch a pre-release screening of the powerful film “Golda”, about Golda Meir, the formidable Israeli Prime Minister at the time of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Some 25 years earlier, immediately after the Évian conference, she had said to the press:
“There is only one thing I hope to see before I die, and that is that my people should not need expressions of sympathy anymore”.
If the post-Nuremberg pledge of “never again” is not to be rendered meaningless by Hamas’s savagery in the largest single loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, we have to recognise that warm words of sympathy do not suffice, and that Israel must be allowed to get on with the job of destroying the evil that is Hamas as a matter of urgency. Time is of the essence. I fear that a ceasefire would be a gift to the murderers who threaten us and our values as much as they do Israel—whose very right to exist they deny. They hide behind and glory in the suffering of their people.
My friend flew from London to rejoin his unit because he knows what is at stake—Israel’s survival is on the line. The question is: do we? Do we recognise that unless and until Hamas and its puppet masters in Iran are defeated, they remain a threat to us all?
We all in this Chamber and around the UK, I hope, want peace. But for that to happen, we must be prepared to allow Israel to take the necessary practical steps as soon as possible to remove the primary obstacle to peace: Hamas.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak about proportionality and the position of Iran. I commend the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, as to the meaning of lawful self-defence in international law. If I may respectfully say so, for anybody interested in the subject it is essential reading.
As to proportionality, it is not helpful to examine this concept in the abstract by reference to dictionaries or lexicons; the context is critical. On the weekend of 7 to 8 October, Hamas entered Israel, ISIS style, and engaged in the slaughter, rape, beheading and hostage taking of civilians. Israel’s response has produced great hardship to Gazans, including many who must be innocent of wrongdoing. Israel has also conducted hundreds of bombing raids on Hamas targets. I believe that it has made best efforts to minimise the suffering of those Gazans who are not terrorists. That is the key difference between the Israeli approach—to preserve innocent life wherever possible—and Hamas, whose avowed objective is to kill Jews.
Gaza is a small and densely populated enclave. As Hamas well knows, it is obvious that Gazans would be killed or injured because Hamas fires rockets from locations near schools and hospitals hoping to secure worldwide sympathy when Israeli efforts to destroy the source of the firing inevitably result in the death of innocent Gazans. The Al-Ahli Anglican hospital episode has been referred to and is instructive. The loss of life and the related damage to the car park at the hospital were the result of a misfired missile from the cemetery located close to the hospital. There was no Israeli bomb, the missile did not hit the hospital and 500 people were not killed. The journalistic performance of the BBC over this episode was appalling. It also led to unfair international criticism of Israel. It was a piece of fake news. In the Spectator, and with reference generally to the performance of the BBC, the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, described the journalism as moral blindness. I completely agree.
Two points come out of that episode. First, Hamas is exclusively responsible for what happened. Secondly, firing missiles from the vicinity of a hospital is an example of Hamas’s indifference to the loss of Palestinian life. From Israel’s perspective this war, as others have said, is about survival. Hamas is committed to the “obliteration” of the State of Israel—that is the word in Hamas’s founding constitutional document. The determination to destroy the State of Israel is reflected in the offensive chant that we are now familiar with, which other noble Lords have mentioned: “From the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea”. That means only one thing: the end of Israel.
The motivation for the timing of the Hamas action was to ensure, if possible, the termination of negotiations designed to bring about the normalisation of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel and to scupper progress towards a two-state solution. Unfortunately, Hamas has achieved some success in that endeavour. Peaceful relations and international harmony do not figure in the Hamas agenda. In my view, debate about proportionality at this time and in these circumstances is essentially meaningless. I will make the point rhetorically and crudely—I hope noble Lords will forgive me. How many deaths sustained on the Hamas side would be within the limit of what would be acceptably proportionate? That is an insoluble equation.
Repeated references to proportionality, often in the context of demands for Israel to cease fire, merely obscure the underlying problem. Hamas is fully operational. Even as we speak, rockets from Gaza have not ceased to rain down on Israel since hostilities began. Apart from the release of four hostages, no word has been heard from Hamas about the other 222 hostages. Why does Hamas not let them go? Why is it keeping them? This is a gross breach of international law. Israel has an absolute right to defend herself. Israel’s response can not fairly—or even honestly, I would say—be described as disproportionate. It is easy to bandy about the word “proportionate,” but when you think about it, the complexity associated with its application in this context is not fathomable. It has actually become a clichéd mantra.
The other point I want to deal with is the position of Iran. Iran professes to be uninvolved with what happened on that October weekend, but this is nonsense. We know Hamas has been financially and militarily resourced by Iran. There have been reports of Farsi having been spoken during the Hamas incursion, which suggests that the Iranian guard were participants from the outset. We also know that the October weekend was carefully planned. Interventions, including drones, were used, which shut down the defences that would have alerted Israelis to the imminent threat. The level of sophistication in the planning and the use of electronic jamming techniques must have come from Iran. Iran is the Hamas puppet master. It performs a similar function in Lebanon, a broken state, via Hezbollah, another proscribed terrorist group.
Fortunately, the United States, Europe and the United Kingdom are alert to the Iranian threat. President Biden has made it clear that a third-party intervention will not be tolerated. This has been backed up with a United States and British naval presence, now located in the eastern Mediterranean. Our own Government are to be complimented for their steadfast and swift response.
This is a depressing and deeply distressing story, not least because the problem is apparently intractable. I paraphrase the famous observation of Golda Meir to the effect that a solution will be found only when Hamas learns to love Palestinian children more than it hates Jews. If you believe, as I do, that the State of Israel is entitled to exist and to defend its borders and its people against this evil, you will support the position of Israel. I hope that your Lordships share this view.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, less than two weeks ago, I commenced our party conference by reading Psalm 122.1 read the words:
“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: They shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, And prosperity within thy palaces”.
For over 40 years, I have been taking groups to visit Israel to walk the pathway where our saviour walked and where one day my saviour will return.
The attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas gunmen on 7 October was nothing less than pure evil. The Hamas attacks were marked by murder, kidnapping, rape and torture. As others have said, it was the bloodiest day in the history of the State of Israel, with the murder of 1,400 civilians, including 260 young people at a music festival, and thousands wounded both physically and mentally, and over 200 hostages taken. Indeed, it was the greatest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Holocaust.
Sadly, just like the Holocaust deniers of the past, there are many across the world who totally blinker themselves and peddle the narrative that Israel was to blame for this slaughter of the innocents; or they try to minimise the magnitude of the atrocities carried out by these hate-filled fanatics who invaded Israel with the intent of butchering, burning and capturing innocent civilians. We cannot allow this dangerous propaganda to go unanswered. The undisputable truth is that numerous heavily armed Hamas terrorists with murder in their hearts entered into different Israeli villages and left unbelievable carnage behind them. They did so unashamedly, cheering as they recorded their actions in order to gloat over their atrocities—yes, they recorded the innocent being shot, stabbed, tortured and burned. They bound, gagged and riddled with bullet holes the bodies of young and old. Hamas celebrated the beheading of men, women, children and babies, and yet there are those within our society who seek to justify these actions.
Let me make it clear that those who claim that the Hamas gunmen were soldiers fighting for a just cause are totally deceived. They were evil assassins who murdered the elderly, disabled, children and babies; they raped women, even abusing a dead young woman’s body, having been instructed to kill anyone and everyone. The inhumanity of their actions is unbelievable yet true and it must be condemned by all. Noble Lords may ask how such inhumanity could happen in 2023. Hamas’s stated aim is the obliteration or annihilation of Israel, not peaceful co-existence with Israel. Its actions are therefore taken seeking to achieve its evil ends.
Those who planned this attack did so to cause maximum fear and distress to innocent civilians. Over recent years Israel has been bombarded with numerous rockets fired from Gaza and Lebanon, but what happened on 7 October was completely different. Hamas carefully planned its attack; it knew when and where it would happen and had every opportunity to make preparation for the needs of its own people—the Palestinian people whom it claims to represent. Yet, within days of the attack, the news media talked endlessly about shortages of food, fuel, water, medical supplies; in other words, shortages of everything—but let us note carefully, no shortages of rockets. These are still in plentiful supply.
Why did Hamas not make preparations to feed or alleviate the suffering of its own people? If the truth is told, it did not care. Indeed, the truth is that the Hamas terrorist organisation has been happy to use and abuse the Palestinian people, making them human shields and using their grievous suffering as a part of its propaganda machine to suck in a receptive world.
Even parts of our own media are afraid to call out Hamas as a terrorist organisation and content to call its murderers “militants” or “fighters”. There is absolutely no excuse for creating the impression of a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel’s armed forces. When the hospital was bombed in Gaza the world’s news media were quick to blame Israel but, when independent sources as well as government agencies researched the evidence, this was found to be totally untrue. The blast at the hospital was from a missile fired in Gaza and hundreds of Palestinians paid the price with their innocent lives, yet Hamas used this tragedy to stir up anti-Israeli hatred across the world and, even after evidence has been produced to the contrary, the narrative has not changed.
The State of Israel has a right to defend its citizens from terrorism, and its fight is a fight for survival. Israel cannot co-exist with Hamas, which is out to annihilate it. Either Israel will defeat and wipe out Hamas or Hamas will continue to destroy Israel. We in Northern Ireland were subjected to countless acts of terrorism from the IRA, an evil organisation with terrorist links with Hamas. It too carried out barbaric acts of terror. It too murdered babies, abducted and killed innocent civilians, some of whose bodies have never been recovered.
The people of Palestine are indeed suffering, and a mother’s tears there are the same as in any other area of conflict, but the Israeli Government have exhorted the innocent to leave the Hamas enclave before they attack the enemy. The people living in the villages of Israel were not given that warning. Hamas ordered its terrorists to kill, kill, kill without mercy, to behead or do whatever they liked against peaceful civilians and glory in their evil deeds.
It is deeply worrying to see that anti-Semitic attacks in this country have increased sevenfold from the same period last year. Will the Minister ensure that His Majesty’s Government continue to protect Jewish people living in the United Kingdom and take resolute action against those who seek to threaten them?
As I said earlier, this is a fight for Israel’s survival. I stand with the people of Israel and pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I want to say how much I appreciate the Leader of the House finding time to have this important debate.
Last week, our Prime Minister stated that this is a pogrom. I am second generation, born in this country due to another pogrom, which took place in Russia in the 1880s. My grandmother managed to survive and obtained sanctuary in this country, allowing us to live in peace and restart our lives. My national service was in the Canal Zone in Egypt in 1953, at the time when Nasser was trying to make himself king of the whole area. I decided to use my allocated leave to visit Israel for the first time in my life.
Last week there was a major discussion in both Houses on the crisis and I was troubled that there was no mention of containment, as far as I am aware. Hamas knows that it cannot win. It has always known that it could not win. It had to be a different strategy, which has obviously been thought out much earlier. Hamas could not win alone and had to make it a much greater conflict. Through some of my other involvements I have knowledge of the Hezbollah missile capability in particular, which is important to us given the ships we have sent out there. The anti-ship missiles have a highly developed capability. There are of course several Peers taking part in this debate who will have greater professional knowledge than I do. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are now very well known; Iran and the Qataris are key supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. The greatest concern is that the highly trained, extremely well-armed militias operating in Iraq and Syria, including ISIS and others, have all stated that they intend to hold Hamas together with their suicide squads, which are possibly already en route.
Over the past 20 years since 9/11, the real hatred is against the great Satan, the United States of America. One cannot rule out the possibility of the United States being attacked, forcing it to retaliate. The worldwide consequences that would have are immense; this country would also be a target. I have been actively involved with others trying to negotiate a peace process for some 35 years, working earlier with King Hussein and later with His Majesty King Abdullah. I went to visit him at his Aqaba home just after the end of the Iraq war. I have had the pleasure of working with him and his key advisers to this very day. It must be remembered, as has been mentioned, that in 1978 the Egyptian President Sadat offered to negotiate a peace treaty, which was completed in the Camp David accords. On 13 September 1993 the Oslo accord was signed between Yitzhak Rabin and, on behalf of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat. Those agreements fell apart over the next five years.
On 26 October 1994, Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty called the Washington declaration, signed by Prime Minister Rabin and King Hussein, with President Clinton serving as a witness. Until his death, King Hussein used every endeavour to find an answer to the peace process. In the last 20 years, his son King Abdullah has widened and extended such endeavours and has become the most respected and influential leader in the whole Middle East internationally, in particular with President Biden. We must not forget that until relatively recent times it has been a warm peace. Israeli President Isaac Herzog has an excellent rapport with King Abdullah and shares the same long-term sentiments: a two-state solution with the Palestinian state totally independent in all forms from Israel, and the Israelis with no future involvement whatever in Gaza after Hamas has been totally defeated. One looks forward to a day when a good relationship will develop between the peoples of both states, which will be highly beneficial for both.
That has always been my personal hope. Hope has been mentioned several times today, including by the most reverend Primate, our splendid noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and many others. Hope is very special indeed. In Arabic it is “amal”, and in Hebrew it is “tikvah”. It is certainly the case that, as has been mentioned by one or two people here, you need leadership—but the present leadership is not adequate.
Your Lordships may have noticed that I have not commented on the atrocities. My noble friend Lord Leigh is a very warm friend and I am a member of his synagogue. I have been approached by people from synagogues, mosques and churches, but I decided that I preferred to walk by the river and think about how I feel about all these things, so I did.
To finish on a warmer note, there have been times when, because the Jewish are not perfect, we have made mistakes. Some times have got so difficult that some of us have thought that, if it is true that we are designated by God as his chosen people, we should try to get in contact and ask whether he could please choose somebody else instead. I thank my splendid noble friend, the most reverend Primate and many others, as I have learned so much tonight and it is very much appreciated.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will take two perspectives on the situation in Gaza and Israel—one local and one global. I will use both these perspectives to argue for a call for a ceasefire now from the British Government. That call would reflect what the UN Secretary-General, UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the World Health Organization are saying. The call also comes from two organisations to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, referred—Women Wage Peace and Women of the Sun —prominent Israeli and Palestinian women’s groups respectively. I noted that same call in the immensely powerful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, which drew on the voices of many so awfully affected by the Hamas atrocity.
I will give the local perspective first. Last night I spoke about the more than 2 million people facing acute water shortage. In 30-degree temperatures they do not have clean water to drink, let alone in which to bathe. More than 1 million people have been told to move, when there is nowhere to move to. I draw on a briefing on international law delivered today: forcible transfer is illegal and a war crime, but there are narrow exceptions if it is temporary and to protect civilians from hostilities, provided that there are assurances that they will be able to return home and there is a humanitarian safe haven—safe from war and provided with essential needs. Israel is not adhering to those principles in Gaza.
In north and south Gaza, children—so many children—women and men are being bombed, attacked and blown to pieces. Whole extended families have been obliterated. One story serves as an example of what is happening to many thousands: the British doctor Mohamed Altawil lost 35 people from his family in a strike on a residential building in which around 100 people died in total. Credible accounts put the level of violent deaths of children so far at 1,750. The total rises daily. Of all those children who were not killed, think of the maiming of their bodies and minds. The organisation Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor estimates a daily death toll of 200 children and infants. Some 24 hours ago we debated the situation in Gaza in this Chamber. Since then, 200 children and infants have died.
Last year, before all this started, a report found that four out of five under-18s in Gaza said that they already suffered from depression, grief or fear. That was a sharp deterioration compared with a 2018 study. A ceasefire would of course not undo all that damage to young minds and bodies, but it would mean an end to the reign of death and destruction in Gaza and Israel. Israeli families are mourning terrible losses and hoping desperately for the safety of hostages. A ceasefire would surely improve their chances of survival and freedom.
I turn now to the international perspective. In the UN Security Council, Russia has been using its attempts to promote a ceasefire resolution with backing from China, Gabon, Mozambique and the UAE to distract from its continuing criminal invasion of Ukraine. This is in a context in which Moscow has already won significant levels of backing and abstentions on motions against its attack on Ukraine from states that have become increasingly disillusioned particularly with the US and UK positions on a range of international issues. This comes in a week in which there has been a breakdown in crucial talks on climate loss and damage. In this context, the global South’s view of the global North can only further decline. In practical terms, a call for a ceasefire would also be a small step in the right direction of convincing many countries that the UK and its allies will act in line with the rule of law and follow humanitarian principles for all the world’s peoples.
There are long memories in your Lordships’ House, so some Members might recall the speech given in 1996 by the Conservative Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, to the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians. It stated that the UK’s position on Palestine was premised on international law and UN resolutions. The Green Party still holds this morally right position today, as it has always done. If we are to establish an order based on the international rule of law which all are expected to obey, we need this to be in the interests of Palestinians, Israelis and us all.
When I talk about the climate emergency, speakers from the Benches opposite often ask, “But what can the UK do?” The same question might be put here, although both our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister seem keen to put themselves forward as central players on the world stage. Rather, I suggest that we need to be humble and realistic. There are limits to what we can do, although restoring overall levels of official development assistance would be a good place to start. We can adopt international law and humanitarian imperatives as the guide for our words and actions.
The Government could start by speaking up for international law and accepting their responsibility to make a judgment call about what is happening in Gaza now, not trying to evade doing so as they have been in the face of multiple challenges in recent days. By not doing so they are implicitly saying that they regard the continuing slaughter of the innocents as acceptable. They could acknowledge that if one party does not adhere to the rule of law, that does not give the green light to the other side also not to adhere to the rules of war.
I will make two final short comments. Atrocity prevention should be at the centre of all UK foreign policy. We could do much more on this. As many other noble Lords have said, we should be putting our own modest contribution towards efforts to relaunch a political process for a two-state solution. The world’s attention had turned away from that; it clearly cannot afford to stay away.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Non-Afl)
My Lords, rather than take sides in this debate, I should like to offer suggestions as to how to move forward positively, peacefully and with compassion and respect for all.
First, we need to arrive at a position where the nations of the world, including the United Kingdom, are ready to acknowledge and recognise the state of Palestine alongside Israel. We can find inspiration in the words of empathetic leaders who have comprehended the gravity of this situation. One particular speech by Barack Obama comes to mind in which he eloquently articulated the need for hope and respect for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank without resorting to aggression, but rather with a sincere call for empathy and understanding.
Secondly, it is time for us to take action, extend compassion and earnestly work towards a peaceful resolution for both sides. We cannot permit the continuation of the suffering faced by the citizens of Israel under the existing status quo. Let us begin to strive for a future where Israel and Palestine can coexist in peace and prosperity.
Thirdly, and constructively, to alleviate the short-term terror, we should agree to create a long-term plan along the lines that I suggested a few weeks ago in this House and for which I have had high-level endorsement. If we have a positive plan, which I will explain in one minute, of a future where everyone benefits, we can work towards it as partners for peace.
So, Saudi Arabia—Mohammed bin Salman—should work with Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians to build a huge port in Gaza, linked to Cyprus, so that Palestine becomes the Hong Kong of the region and its citizens become wealthy. Together, these countries—Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Jordan—having become partners in this huge, positive construction project, can all develop the Sinai peninsula as a huge solar energy park as a source of clean energy for the planet, moving the region from oil and gas income to solar power.
This partnership would build peace, co-operation and green energy on the vast scale that the world needs. My friend Samir Takla in Egypt is in close contact with President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and they would like this to happen. Perhaps the Minister, who has been so helpful in all of this, might invite the parties here to discuss this in a positive, constructive way, with the UK playing a co-ordinating role. Several organisations with which I am involved would be happy to help organise and facilitate such a conference and project.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like everyone in your Lordships’ House and across the country and world, I heard the news on 7 October with horror. I was in Turkey at the time, flying back that morning. I woke to the news of the attacks on Israel. As soon as we had landed at Stansted, I heard people in the row behind me on the plane saying, “Oh no, they’ve taken hostages”. I do not know, but my sense was that it was a Jewish family behind me, who were concerned already about hostage taking.
The attack on Israel was an atrocity, the likes of which we have not seen since the Holocaust. It is the worst attack since 9/11, but the worst loss of life for Jewish people since the Holocaust. Israel has a right to defend itself and we must support Israel in defending itself. However, it is absolutely the case that Israel must abide by international law. We should also be looking for a temporary cessation of hostilities at the very least to allow humanitarian aid to get into Gaza.
Whoever the perpetrators might be—Hamas is a terrorist organisation—the majority of people in Gaza are under 18. They are not the perpetrators of the crimes of 7 October. The premature babies lying in incubators in hospitals in Gaza are innocent victims of what is happening. Food, energy and clean water need to get into Gaza, and we need to be looking to support that. Could the Minister tell the House what His Majesty’s Government are doing to work, behind the scenes perhaps, with Israel and other countries to try to bring about a temporary cessation of hostilities for humanitarian reasons? Eventually, a permanent ceasefire is desirable, but the immediate requirement is a cessation of hostilities coupled with, obviously, the release of the 200 hostages, as so many noble Lords have called for.
Apart from the situation in Israel and Gaza at the moment, there are three things I would like to raise: first, the domestic consequences in the United Kingdom of the conflict; secondly, the regional implications; and, thirdly, the wider, global situation. I am not going quite as far as my noble friend Lord Alderdice in suggesting that this is going to be the third global conflict, but there are clearly very serious consequences we need to be aware of and where His Majesty’s Government hopefully have some thoughts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised concerns about a lack of education about Judaism and the Holocaust. In particular, she raised concerns about two universities, one of which is my university—the University of Cambridge. I apologise if anybody feels that there is anti-Semitism stemming from the University of Cambridge. Clearly, anti-Semitism must be condemned. The spillover of anti-Semitism into this country, the rise of anti-Semitic crime, and the concerns as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, of Jewish children going to school and university, is something that we really need to be looking to. We need to overcome anti- Semitism in this country, but we also need to avoid a spillover into Islamophobia. Both of those things are vital.
On regional spillover, we have heard reference to Iran this evening but we have not heard much more about the wider regional consequences that could come about from the current situation in Israel and Gaza. Could the Minister tell us what assessment His Majesty’s Government are making of the situation with Lebanon and the role of Hezbollah, and how far Iran is involved in this conflict? In particular, will His Majesty’s Government look again at proscribing the Iranian revolutionary guard?
Finally, I turn to the wider consequences. Already we have heard that President Erdoğan of Turkey, a NATO partner, has close links with Hamas—there has been reference in the media to that situation—though he is possibly pulling back slightly. Have His Majesty’s Government talked to President Erdoğan? Beyond that, what about other partner nations and countries that have seen support for Hamas—not just Qatar but further afield?
At present the United States and the United Kingdom have been stalwart in their support of Israel, but many countries have not been so stalwart in that support. There are competing rhetorics, quite apart from the fake news that has been talked about this evening. What assessment are His Majesty’s Government making around some of the wider challenges for the global situation and for relations between Christians, Jews and Muslims?
As my noble friend Lord Alderdice reminded us, in Palestine it is not just Muslims who are being killed but also Christians. We talk about the Holy Land. Jerusalem is a city that is prized by Christians, Muslims and Jews. We can only join with the Minister when he recited earlier the Muslim prayer, “To God we belong and to God we return”. Let us hope that that sees us returning not just to God but to peace and reconciliation in the Middle East.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I begin by conveying my deepest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and to all other noble Lords who may have lost friends and families in Palestine and Israel. I am grateful to the Minister for conveying the government messages in the way that he has, and I look forward to the work that he has done and will do for the two-state solution.
It is difficult to express ourselves in words as we view the brutal and senseless kidnapping and murder of innocent men, women and children. I stand in this House as a daughter of a land, born of a mother and a family, that stood with courage to resist the might of genocidal occupiers who vowed to obliterate a whole nation and people with one purpose: to crush the inalienable rights of self-determination to live in a free and independent nation. I have spoken about that before in this House.
We did not have modern smartphones relaying the live butchery of war but as a child, like millions of others, I was a witness, and for the 52 years since that experience has shaped my life and my thinking, as has the hope that my mother embedded in my heart. The British Conservative Government were one of the first to recognise an independent Bangladesh, so I speak with a heavy heart in utter dismay at how far we seem to have moved from our core British values of proclaimed fairness, justice and the protection of all who exercise the rights of nationhood and freedom.
There is no question that the terror perpetrated by Hamas was disgusting, barbaric and merciless—as is the indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians in Gaza today. I find myself agreeing with the many people who have spoken and written to me about the lack of integrity that our government institutions and leaders have shown throughout the latest crisis in the Middle East, as silent observers who may be fully cognisant of the potential violation of international laws and conventions to protect women and children and provide the basic necessities of food, water and shelter. That is wrong.
Indeed, the UK Government’s strident support has emboldened the current Israeli Government, mired in national controversy. Regardless of any constraint gently called for by our Government, Israel continues to shower thousands of bombs—possibly using phosphorus —on the civilians of Gaza. Thousands of men, women and children have perished, among the estimated 5,000 slaughtered and 15,000 injured, while many more thousands, including entire families, remain buried under the rubble, as was stated by the Minister. Our screens are filled with live footage of children being pulled out from under flattened homes, lifeless or severely injured and absolutely terrified of the carnage before their eyes, screaming in a frenzy for their mothers and fathers to wake from death. How are we able to stand cold-faced and vow to protect one family but not another in the same land?
I am deeply concerned at the dehumanising language that our Government and some media organisations have been using in relation to Palestine, Palestinians and Muslims across the world, including in the UK. That dehumanising language holds immense power and is detrimental to the individuals and communities that it targets, perpetrating harmful stereotypes, fostering suspicions and resulting in an intensely hostile environment that is dangerous for our children and for a cohesive Britain.
While I note the Prime Minister’s assurances, I cannot overstate the public perception and sense of anger that we have failed in safeguarding British Muslims and Jewish communities against a very real, threatening rise in Islamophobic and anti-Semitic attacks. Responsible Governments play a crucial role in fostering an informed society that validates the balanced and factual opinion that they provide to the public, particularly during conflicts, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Singh, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone.
Many noble Lords have spoken about misinformation in this context. I too am alarmed about the many one-sided narratives online and offline, including those that have filtered through to my House of Lords work phone. I wonder where security is on that.
Public support cannot be taken for granted and there is evidence of an erosion of trust as government and non-government officials continue to offer unequivocal support for the Israeli Government, who may be committing war crimes, as stated by human rights organisations. We have already seen vast numbers on the streets of our cities and throughout the world who refuse to condone any collective punishment. This has far-reaching consequences for the public’s understanding and trust and ultimately undermines the democratic values we hold dear.
Internationally, we risk our credibility as brokers of peace and stalwarts for justice. No other nation shall easily accept that we are capable of upholding higher standards of human rights. The presentation of a nation’s integrity demands justice for all, not just those we consider partners and friends.
My voice may not carry far enough, but I too demand that Hamas releases all hostages unconditionally. There must be an immediate ceasefire, for, just as with the tragedy of Iraq, we will rue these decisions. Once again, I believe that the UK Government are standing on the wrong side of history, however it is portrayed.
What legal advice and assurance have the Government obtained prior to declaring unreserved support for Israel’s military operation in Gaza and its civilian population? Do the Government view any aspects of Israeli attacks as potential war crimes?
I call upon my Government to urge on the Israeli Government an immediate ceasefire and to urge their co-operation with the Governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, South Africa, Malaysia and all the other countries which attended the summit in Cairo. I welcome wholeheartedly and praise unreservedly the collective international efforts, particularly of Qatar and Red Crescent, towards releasing all hostages and reaching a ceasefire, and for a peaceful, free and independent Palestine.
I fear that my words cannot do justice to all those who have perished and every family who have lost their loved ones. Like so many witnessing the carnage of war, my heart weeps to God for justice, and I pray that peace will prevail over the pillage of war. Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un—from God we come and to God we return.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, these are dark times, and they are becoming darker still. We have heard many impressive contributions today which will shape for some time to come national and international understanding of these great issues at stake.
I take particular pleasure in paying tribute to the outstanding contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, with his courage in calling out the SWP and other entities on our streets that are disfiguring our national debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, one of our pre-eminent Silks, for his outstanding exposition of the issues relating to proportionality and other matters of international law. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Austin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for their contributions and to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for maintaining Britain’s position in the world and our relevance, so that our voice still counts for something.
I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon; I am mindful of the debate on the Abraham accords last month in the Moses Room in Grand Committee, the last occasion on which I heard him in person on the affairs of this region. It all seems a tremendously long time ago now. Rightly, those Abraham accords still enjoy widespread cross-party support across the House and I will return to that matter later.
Although our voices will be heard abroad, our particular responsibility, as British subjects, is here in the UK. Our deliberations will have especial resonance on our doorstep. So, too, will the words of high-profile external stakeholders in this country.
It was on 22 October that the Muslim Council of Britain urged its followers on social media to
“Write to your MP. Stop Gaza Genocide”.
Genocide—think of the word. This is an outrageous assertion, to the point of being a blood libel. No reputable authority on international law, whatever they think of Israel’s response to Hamas’s attack of 7 October, believes that her actions come within the definition of the UN’s genocide convention and other key relevant texts. By contrast, it is Hamas’s professed agenda—to wipe out Israel—which is the genocidal one. Incendiary language such as claims of genocide, and old canards of Jews being party to and pushing genocide, have unfortunately played some tragic part in the explosion of anti-Semitic attacks in this country since 7 October, which, according to the Metropolitan Police’s own statistics, are up by 1,353%.
There are policy implications for our country here. The first relates to community engagement. Pre-eminently, the previous Labour Government under Gordon Brown rightly cut contact with the Muslim Council of Britain in 2009, after its then deputy secretary- general signed the Istanbul declaration, calling for attacks on Royal Navy vessels enforcing a UN weapons blockade on Hamas-run Gaza. The Muslim Council of Britain, despite its avowed modernisation programme, still does not resile from that position. Indeed, its present deputy secretary-general, Mohammed Kozbar, has publicly praised the founder of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, as
“the master of the martyrs of the resistance”.
That is why it is right that all successive Prime Ministers, whether under the coalition or Conservative Governments since then, have maintained the ban on the Muslim Council of Britain. Will my noble friend the Minister therefore now reaffirm this non-engagement policy and give further assurances that the policy will be implemented throughout government, including within the Ministry of Defence and other departments? It would also be interesting to know where the Labour Party presently stands on this issue. Will the Minister also ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that responses to this crisis should now inform part of the newly reforged extremism criteria, which his ministry is presently working on?
I began tonight with reflections on the Abraham accords. I greatly welcome the work and initiative of figures such as Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham, Perry Barr, to set up new structures and bodies that will put those accords at the heart of community relations in this country. More than ever, we need the spirit of that greatest interfaith initiative of our times, not least on the streets of this country.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I too begin by expressing great thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for the grace, wisdom and fortitude with which he has led us in this debate. I welcome the consensus that I have heard across the Chamber from all sides. Like others, I have learned so much this evening. I also want to echo what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said earlier: I too deeply mourn and cry out for all those who have been brutally murdered in this conflict and rightly note the duty of Israel to guard and defend her citizens, yet at the same time I cry out on behalf of the innocent in every community and appeal for a peace with justice.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Godson, who we have just heard from, I want to say a little about an element of this that we have not discussed that much in this debate, which is the impact of it all here in our own country and how this, in turn, affects the world. We are, as we know, a global community living in an age of instant communication. Our interconnectedness means that this conflict is felt deeply across the world and directly affects communities here in the UK, immediately and especially Jewish and Muslim communities. There are of course personal consequences. We have movingly heard about those for some of us here in this Chamber, but even if we do not know people ourselves, we know people who know people who are related to those in Israel and Palestine who have lost loved ones, livelihoods and homes—even those who are still being held hostage.
At the same time, the unfiltered platform that social media allows to extremist voices is making the situation worse, creating an atmosphere of palpable fear—this came up in Questions earlier today—and it is something we urgently need to address. It has no place in our democracy. As the noble Lords, Lord Harrington, Lord Bilimoria, Lord McCrea and Lord Godson, have said, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are on the rise, but particularly anti-Semitism. Senseless and pointless attacks on Jewish community buildings, schools and individuals have all increased, and the statistics are truly frightening, as we have heard.
Up and down the country, and built up over many years, we have across our nation a strong network of regional faith forums, many of which I have been involved with, as have almost all the Bishops on these Benches. Yet, I hear that a number of them, while relationships continue, are struggling to agree joint statements or hold vigils for peace because it is all too raw and emotions are running so high, and because there are still so many unhelpful voices around. However, some have taken place, and this is a vital sign of hope, and something that we must build on. Although, like the noble Lord, Lord Godson, I abhor the hateful voices, I also want to pay tribute to women and men from across our faith communities—I am thinking especially of Muslim and Jewish leaders that I know—who are working courageously to lead through this time and at considerable personal cost. There are inspiring examples of this happening across the north, in Leeds, Bradford and other places where I serve. I am thinking here of teachers, pastors, priests, youth workers and community workers who are nurturing the values that we all hold dear, caring for one another and building community across strong difference.
We need to be clear that how individuals and communities act here and now, today, tomorrow, in this country, will shape and influence what happens next, in the coming days and for the years ahead. Which also means that what we say here—our statements, policies and prayers—both in content and tone, matters. I note particularly the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, earlier, about the need to renew our religious education and particularly education around the Holocaust. So, while of course we must condemn utterly those who foster fear and hatred in our communities, we also need to galvanise and support those who at the local level are modelling something different and seeking the way of peace.
Finally, in the last couple of weeks I have noticed two things: first, that human blood is red—Jewish blood, Muslim blood, Christian blood; secondly, like the ocean, tears are salt water, and the flood levels are rising. Unless we pay attention, both internationally and at home, to the things that make for peace, unless we are clear about the evils we face and the need to strengthen international law to make safe passage, then we might be overwhelmed. Therefore, I ask the Minister, what efforts are being made to support those at the local level who are working for community cohesion and are busy making peace.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I pay tribute to him for his public statement last Monday and in particular for his message of support for the Jewish community here in the UK.
Although this excellent debate has ranged far and wide, I want to focus my remarks on matters rather closer to home. On Saturday night, I had two children in uniform. My son, who has now made his life in Israel, wore the uniform of the Israel Defense Forces. Like most 20 year-olds in Israel, he is doing military service. He personally saw the aftermath of Hamas’s atrocities, sights which no 20 year-old—in fact, no one—should see. But he is in uniform because, if he and his friends were not, there would not be an Israel. It really is that simple.
My other child in uniform was my daughter. Her uniform was trainers, jeans and a necklace with a Magen David—a Star of David—around her neck. That is her customary Saturday night uniform, in common with many teenage girls in north London, as they come into town on the Tube to enjoy this great city’s nightlife. I was more concerned about the safety of my daughter than of my son.
How on earth have we got to a place where I am more concerned about a teenage girl in London with a Star of David around her neck than my son in an army uniform in a country at war? There are three reasons: information, institutions and constitution. I will give an example of each.
The first is information. The BBC is not a state broadcaster, but it is a national broadcaster. I say this with genuine regret as a supporter of the BBC: in the past few weeks it has brought us national shame. I need not take time with the BBC’s abject failure to describe Hamas in plain English as what it is: a terrorist group. After an intervention from me and other noble Lords, the BBC announced that it had stopped calling Hamas “militants”—I am not making this up—because
“we have been finding this a less accurate description for our audiences as the situation evolves”.
A “less accurate description”—no further comment is necessary. However, last week the BBC reported, uncritically, and citing only Palestinian officials—which of course means Hamas—that Israel had struck the Al-Ahli hospital. But what the Israelis said at the time has now been corroborated: it was an Islamic Jihad rocket that hit the hospital. That defamatory report is still on the BBC website.
In our community we are used to some people, such as Mr Corbyn, parroting Hamas propaganda, but to have the BBC do it when it would not have done so with propaganda from ISIS or al-Qaeda led to real consequences, not just the cancellation of a summit in Amman but in this city too: Jewish schools closed, kosher restaurants smashed up, heightened security at every synagogue—and my daughter wondering whether it was safe to go on the Tube.
Others repeated that propaganda, including, I am afraid, a noble friend of mine, who tweeted not just that the Israelis had hit the hospital but that they had “targeted” it—a word she used twice. I called that out as a modern blood libel, and I am delighted that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury used the same language recently as well. But the damage was done. Other terrorist groups will have seen and taken note. So we should remember the old injunction: “Careless talk costs lives”.
The second is our institutions. The Jewish community has learned over the past two weeks who our many friends are. We have also seen who they are not. I will give just one short example: our universities. University Jewish societies no longer publicise where they are meeting. The address is handed out, samizdat fashion, shortly before the meeting. This is not some underground group in Soviet Russia but a Jewish society in this country in 2023.
Our universities have become centres of binary thinking, where you are either an oppressor or the oppressed. In the case of Israel, it would seem that oppressors include murdered babies and kidnapped grandmothers—although sometimes Hamas preferred to kidnap the babies and murder their grandmothers. Students and their professors will write long and apparently scholarly articles explaining how words are violence and silence is violence, but they now offer no words—only silence—in the face of not just violence but a pogrom. So if, when we face terrorism, careless talk costs lives, silence in the face of terrorism costs even more.
The third is our constitution. I do not mean the royal and political elements of our constitution. The moral lead shown by His Majesty the King in response to what went on, and his granting the Chief Rabbi a private audience, has resonated across the entire Jewish community, as has the principled stance taken by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and other political leaders. This is not a party-political issue.
The Jewish community is protected by law, but many currently feel that they are not protected by those whose job it is to enforce the law. The shout “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is not a nursery rhyme; it is a murderous rhyme because it calls for the destruction of Israel and, necessarily, its inhabitants. It is not a demand for the two-state solution in which I and so many others still believe. But the police have done nothing about it.
They did not even intervene when members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group that is illegal in many other western countries but is still legal here for some reason, chanted for jihad. I am aware that “jihad” has several meanings apart from armed struggle: it can refer to self-reflection, personal improvement and quiet meditation. But when it is chanted on the streets of London with a banner referring to Muslim armies liberating Palestine, and when the group’s website refers to
“heroic feats carried out by the heroic Mujahideen in the Blessed Land—Palestine”,
I simply do not understand how the Metropolitan Police concluded that that cry for jihad was not supporting or glorifying Hamas, which is a criminal offence.
Careless talk costs lives, but silence in the face of terrorism costs more. Police inaction will only encourage those who want to bring their violence and terrorism here. We need to change, to call out terrorism for what it is, to speak out against terrorists and their apologists here, and to act firmly to keep people—everyone—safe. The safety of my son in his army uniform is ultimately a matter for the Government of Israel, but the safety of my daughter on the Tube in London is a matter for our Government and this Parliament.
I conclude with this. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, quoted Jeremiah, chapter 31, verse 15. The prophet there sees the matriarch Rachel in her resting place at Rama, so close to Bethlehem, weeping as the people of Israel are led past her as captives into exile, but she refuses to be comforted. As the noble and right reverend Lord said, that verse is repeated in the New Testament in Matthew, chapter 2, verse 18. There is a Jewish tradition that we do not end a biblical reading on a note of despondency, so I conclude by reciting the immediately following two verses in Jeremiah, as we all pray for the safe return of all the hostages:
“Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord”—
veshavu vanim lig’vulam—
“thy children shall return to their own borders”.
Amen.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it has been a sombre debate appropriate for the circumstances that we are in. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the Minister. We are lucky in this House at the moment to have the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, as the Minister for the Middle East.
Just over a year ago, alongside my noble friend Lady Ludford, I was close to the Gaza border in the kibbutz Netiv HaAsara. We were welcomed into homes for tea. Sixteen people in that kibbutz were murdered. The trauma felt by that community has been felt in Jewish communities across the globe, especially here at home, as we have just heard from the noble Lord. It is still living, given the ongoing hostages so brutally taken and abused.
As the Minister said, the year leading up to 7 October in Israel and the Occupied Territories had been one of the most violent in years, but we were all horrified that in Israel, children, babies and the elderly had been targeted by terrorists. We are equally horrified that in Gaza more than 3,000 children, women and elderly have now been killed. It is tragic to me that in such a young Israeli and Arab population in the region, it is the children who are suffering the most. Young people in the Middle East are the largest age group, but they grow up with an almost unbearable weight of history upon them. The future cannot be built on a narrative of history perpetually repeating itself. The Minister correctly said that Hamas does not speak for the Palestinian people, and I agree with him, but equally the civilians in Gaza should not have to answer for Hamas’s actions, as my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece said. I pay tribute to her work and that of my noble friend Lord Palmer as patrons of Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine and Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel.
All our efforts now must be to prevent further suffering within Israel, in Gaza and the West Bank, and to prevent conflict contagion in the neighbouring countries. I spoke to a friend in Lebanon last week, and she is scared of what may lie ahead. The violence and tactics of Hamas have been repulsive, and the Israeli Government have the first duty of all Governments to protect their citizens. I do not know and cannot judge whether the three war aims by the Israeli war cabinet to the IDF are achievable militarily. From my many visits to northern Iraq during the occupation of Mosul, I know—and share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Reid—that any ground invasion will be catastrophic for the civilians in the area, and indeed for many of the IDF recruits and conscripts who will be sent to carry out that work. In Mosul, 10,000 civilians died and 1 million people were displaced.
As my noble friend Lord Alderdice said, some of the claims that Hamas is identical to Daesh are perhaps less accurate than the claim that there would be more similarities to the Taliban. I returned for the Statement last night from Addis Ababa, where I had been carrying out discussions with Sudanese exiled from that horrible conflict. I have been to too many war zones over the last three years not to appreciate that civilians will be the first victims of any wider conflict.
As noble Lords have said, there is no equivalence to the acts of Hamas terrorism. There should be no justification or equivocation in the condemnation of them. Equally, there are not two versions of international law, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem said. We cannot in one conflict espouse the rules-based international order, only to set it aside in another. I listened extremely carefully to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Grabiner. I too have read elements of the manual when it comes to combatants, the prohibition of the forced displacement of people, the rules on starvation, the rules on regulating humanitarian relief operations and the rules on evacuations—that they must be voluntary. Even then, when people do not evacuate, they do not forfeit their status or protections.
I also read the letter, as referred to in the debate, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger—not just a lawyer but the former president of the UK Supreme Court, and other significant British Jewish lawyers who wrote on international humanitarian law. He said in the letter to the Financial Times:
“These laws apply irrespective of the level of outrageous conduct of an enemy and no exceptions to those rules can be derived from the level of suffering caused by Hamas’s actions”.
I agree that international law is applicable to allies and adversaries alike. Clear breaches by Hamas do not justify breaches by Israel.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, added in his letter:
“There are some aspects of Israel’s response that already cause significant concern. International law forbids sieges of civilian populations. Gaza is home to some 2mn fellow human beings (almost half of whom are children) and it would be a grave violation of international law to hold them under siege and while doing so deprive them of basic necessities such as food and water. To be clear, collective punishment is prohibited by the laws of war”.
He concluded:
“In these times of pain and terror the notion that there are laws that we must all live by is challenging but essential. Jewish history teaches us that we cannot give up on them”.
In recent days we have seen the slight opening of lifesaving aid for Gaza civilians—as the Minister referred to—which is welcome, but I agree with the Minister and many noble Lords in this debate that this is not enough. We also saw good offices used to free some hostages, but there should be no question that all hostages need to be released, and not through the deliberate psychological torture of partial release, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said. I endorse the calls for the International Committee of the Red Cross to have immediate access to all hostages—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, called for last evening after the Statement—as a first step to their release.
In Gaza the conditions forced upon the civilian population are now extreme, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Janke and others. Southern Gaza is now the most densely populated place on the planet, with UN shelters hosting up to 11 times the number of people they were designed for. Those brave United Nations staff working so hard to provide the limited services available are suffering too. Overnight it was announced that another six UNRWA staff have been confirmed killed, bringing the total to 35 since 7 October. A total of 40 UNRWA installations have been damaged since 7 October, including two in the last 24 hours. Out of 22 UNRWA health centres, only eight are operational; nearly 3,200 pregnant women and around 320 post-natal cases require urgent medical attention, as my noble friend Lady Smith highlighted. I hope there is no question that women should be able to give birth in safety and with dignity, and I pay tribute to Medical Aid for Palestinians and the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris.
UNRWA stocks of medicines are critically decreasing and it is warning today that services will run out tomorrow. I agree with the Minister that aid needs to be brought in at a far greater rate and scale than has been provided for in recent days. I also join my noble friends Lord Palmer and Lady Sheehan in agreeing with the UN Secretary-General, and today President Macron, in their calls for a safe, secure route for UN staff to enable supplies to get to the people who need them and the humanitarian workers.
There should be a cessation of hostilities in key areas. Water services need to be restored. A humanitarian suspension of hostilities should also allow for the much-needed diplomatic work on the conditions of the next stage, which should be a ceasefire whereby civilians are protected, along with Israel’s right to get its hostages home safely and protect itself. This will of course be exceptionally difficult but it will be necessary.
The UK has a strong and respected track record of planning and then delivering humanitarian aid and in peacemaking. I declare an interest as chair of the UK board for Search for Common Ground, a peacemaking charity. We need to be an increasing participant in this regard. Like my noble friend Lady Sheehan, I pay tribute to Women Wage Peace. I chaired a panel with that remarkable group of women in a parliamentary event parallel to the freedom of religion and belief conference that the Minister was so active in last year.
I welcome the announced increase in support to UNRWA, and the commendation of it by the Leader of the House last night. However, we need to reverse what I highlighted in the Chamber in March—the cutting by half of UK funding to UNRWA from £70 million in 2018 to £28 million in 2021. We need to build a reserve of humanitarian support, which may be needed by the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the West Bank in particular. We need to reverse the reductions of UK support to the OPT, which fell from £107 million in 2019-20 to just £17 million this year. If Gaza will not be occupied by Israel again then the West Bank authorities will need greater capacity. Hard as we foresee this will be, it will be necessary. I hope the Minister agrees that we must have a reserve of funds available for future need.
Wider than funding, our diplomatic presence will be needed more than ever in the coming days to prevent the wider conflagration which Hamas and its sponsors will be hoping for. We need to recognise that, if we do not work even harder for the two-state solution, even in these terribly fraught times, then we push the Palestinian cause further from Israel’s Arab neighbours to Tehran. Many assumptions behind some elements of the Abraham accords which neglected the Palestinian cause may now need to be revisited.
These Benches have called repeatedly for the recognition of the state of Palestine. We recognise Jerusalem to be the capital of two peoples. Even though at this deeply dark moment that may be harder to achieve than for 50 years, our minds must still be on what has to be a future where Israel is a state free from existential threat and Palestinians have a state which is a homeland too. Both need to live in security and peace and to build prosperity for the future. As my noble friend Lord Oates, said, success of one cannot be secured sustainably by the failure of the other.
The wider world needs Israel, as the democracy in the region that it is, and it needs it to operate within international law, as we have seen the growth of autocracies such as Russia and China give a lead to coups in Africa and elsewhere, where they say that democracy is a failed concept and breeds hypocrisy. The world needs Israel.
In our debates, being pro-Israel should not silence you when its politicians take extreme political positions, and being pro-Palestinian should not mean that you turn a blind eye to terrorist atrocities. I am pro-Israel. I am a friend of Palestine. We need not feed a narrative which sophisticated misinformation and disinformation— malignant forces—seek to perpetuate. They wish a polarisation and to close down a measured perspective which shows respect and maintains common principles. At times of violence and conflict, we need those approaches more than ever, even though they may be harder than ever.
We often say here that actions are stronger than words, but in the Middle East, which I have visited over 50 times in the last six years, words are actions. As my noble friend Lord Hussain said, we need to be sensitive to this at home. However, we also need to be clear with our words. For those Jewish and Muslim people in our communities we say in the clearest terms that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are contrary to everything that we believe. Both communities will be respected and protected.
It is likely that my next speech will be on the first humble Address of the new King’s reign. Winding his speech from these Benches—from this very spot—in the debate on the first humble Address of Her late Majesty’s reign in 1952 was Viscount Samuel. To quote from Hansard, he said:
“For five years I had the great honour, as representative of the British Crown and under the supervision of the League of Nations, to preside over the Administration which laid the foundations of the modern State in Palestine. That task was accomplished and all went well for some years afterwards, but of late there have been conflict and war. Although the war is over, there is still no peace, and grave suffering has been caused, particularly to the Arab refugees. I most earnestly hope that the United Nations now will take active steps to bring about a settlement”.—[Official Report, 6/11/1952; col. 103.]
How sad it is that 70 years later I, as a successor on these Benches, will be repeating some of this message.
We have of course seen success—Israel has been a remarkable success in so many regards. However, there is still no peace, as my noble friend Lady Janke said, and we have debated today in similar terms to those then. These are very dark days, but we can only survive in light, and this must be our endeavour going forward for the young people in the region. Many of us know that “shalom” and “salaam” have the same Semitic origin and both mean “peace”. These are words which must also be action.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, not only for his incredibly moving and powerful introduction to this debate but for all the work that he undertakes in the FCDO in the cause of justice and peace across the globe. Not for the first time, he and I are absolutely at one on this issue; there is no difference between us. I have been shadowing him for many years now and it is incredible how, with events in the world, we have become closer. I hope that is a good sign for the future, too.
As Keir Starmer said yesterday, the brutal attack in Israel just over two weeks ago was the darkest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust. The horror and suffering caused is seared into memories with images of the dead and dying that can never be unseen. As we have heard in this debate, despite those events two weeks ago, Israel is still under attack, with rockets still being fired over it and launched against it. Israel has the right and, indeed, the duty to bring home all hostages being held by Hamas and to weaken the capabilities which made Black Saturday possible. A military response from Israel is justified in these circumstances, and it must be within those sacred parameters of international law and the protection of human life. As Keir Starmer has said:
“We democracies know that all human life is equal. Innocent lives must be protected. These are the principles that differentiate us from the terrorists who target Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/23; col. 593.]
As noble Lords have mentioned, at the weekend we saw the release of two American hostages, and last night saw the release of Nurit Cooper and Yocheved Lifschitz, but their husbands are still being held as hostages. Oded—Yocheved’s husband—is a journalist who, for decades, has worked for peace and the rights of Palestinians. When I spoke to the NUJ, it said that in 1972 he defended the rights of Bedouin people who were expelled from their homes in the Rafah area, south of Gaza. In May, I visited that area and met Bedouins who had been expelled from their homes. I also met Israelis who were absolutely determined to build communities together and secure peace. A very shocking thing is that Hamas attacked those people, and particularly the young people who were the future for peace. It is outrageous, but we should not let that hinder our determination to seek peace.
My noble friend Lady Smith met Yocheved’s daughter last week; my noble friend said that she bore her fear and pain with dignity that only served to emphasise the depth of her emotions. I heard her on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning. It was absolutely powerful testimony. She spoke about talking to her mother, who was “very sharp” and “keen to share information”. Of course, speaking later to the media from a hospital in Tel Aviv, Yocheved described how she was kidnapped by Hamas gunmen on motorbikes, hit with sticks and taken into a “spider’s web” of underground tunnels. She said:
“I went through hell that I could not have known”.
The release of four hostages is, of course, welcome, but what we must do and must support and must ensure is the unconditional release of all of those hostages.
As we have heard in the debate, Gaza is facing a humanitarian emergency and innocent civilians are terrified for their lives. We have seen children forced to flee their homes, clean water running out and hospitals barely able to function. Certainly, we welcome President Biden’s initiative and the US-led diplomacy that brokered the agreement for a few dozen trucks carrying life-saving humanitarian aid to cross into the Gaza Strip. The Minister mentioned the numbers: 20 on Saturday, 14 on Sunday and, tonight, we are up to 50 trucks getting through; but that is simply not enough.
Gaza is a city the size of Birmingham; a place where, even before this devastation, life was a struggle, as my noble friend Lord Reid illustrated so well. Of course, those 50 trucks are welcome progress, but, as I said, not nearly enough. The UK Government must do everything in their power, working with partners, to get food, water, medicine and fuel to help those innocent citizens. I welcome the Minister’s announcement —and welcomed the PM’s announcement—of a doubling of support; but the EU has announced a tripling of support. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, there is no doubt that we need to up that support over the coming days and weeks. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that that will be done.
We must also follow the US example by appointing a UK special co-ordinator for international aid to Gaza. As the Minister said, the FCDO has amazing expertise within it. We should ensure that British experts and medical support teams are deployed immediately, as well as working with international partners to give UN agencies such as UNRWA the long-term resources they need and insisting that fuel is allowed into Gaza.
When I was in the West Bank in May, I met UNWRA officials. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, UNRWA had been run down in respect of funding and support over a number of years, and that has impacted hugely on its ability to provide necessary support in this crisis. I welcome the action that the Minister has highlighted tonight. I also echo the call made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for humanitarian corridors and humanitarian access. There must be proper protection for all those who work selflessly so that aid can be delivered to victims.
The simple fact is that, if Hamas had a single concern for the safety of Palestinian people, it would never have taken hostages. The responsibility for this crisis lies with Hamas and nobody else. The scenes of hundreds killed at the Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist hospital are devastating and cannot be justified. As we have heard tonight, we know who was responsible for that. Hospitals and civilian lives must be protected. We all have a duty to act responsibly and judiciously, as the facts are determined.
I stress that I also agree absolutely with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that we must not allow these tragic events to divide our communities. As we have heard in the debate, the Community Security Trust and the Metropolitan Police have reported a steep increase in anti-Semitic incidents in recent days, including abuse and assaults. Tell MAMA has reported a tripling of cases for its services, including reports of anti-Muslim threats, abuse and assaults. We must denounce hate crime in the strongest terms. We are in touch with the police, the CST and Tell MAMA, which are co-ordinating the response to such threats. We expect to see a robust response to all incidents of hate associated with the conflict and call on Government to support these groups, and to play their part in preventing an escalation of tensions. There is absolutely no place in Britain for anti-Semitic hate or Islamophobia.
I also share the concern that has been highlighted that such divisions and hatred can spread. I share the most reverend Primate’s concern about the escalation of violence in the West Bank, too. We should focus on that to try to ensure that peace can return and that communities can work together.
The Minister—perhaps this is one area where I will have a bit of a pop at him—is aware I have consistently called, along with other noble Lords, for the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Labour’s shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow Home Secretary had called for this last January. As we have heard in the debate, my noble friend Lord Coaker moved an amendment to the National Security Act to that effect. I hope that we will see some action. Over the weekend, the media reported that the US is now pressuring the UK to proscribe the group over its complicity in supporting Hamas. I hope that the Minister can give a clear indication tonight that the Government will finally act to proscribe this organisation.
Another issue brought up in the debate has been that in the fog of this war, disinformation is flooding social media. What are the Government doing to ensure that social media companies act responsibly to limit toxic and dangerous disinformation? As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said, loose talk endangers lives.
The biggest risk of this war is that it could deepen into a wider regional conflict. That would be disastrous for the Middle East as well as the wider world. The Minister mentioned in his introduction the discussions taking place with allies to ensure containment and de-escalation. I hope that in his response, he can give a little more detail about those discussions and how they are progressing.
I also welcome what the Minister said about support for British nationals who have been trapped in Gaza since the outbreak of this war. During his trip to the Middle East, the Prime Minister met the Egyptian president, President al-Sisi, and talked of progress in that regard. I hope that the Minister can again give us more detail about how we can support UK nationals trying to leave Gaza via the Rafah crossing.
Hamas wants the chaos of war, which is why it has committed this outrageous act. Hamas wants Jews to suffer. Hamas wants the Palestinian people to share in the pain. That is because, as my noble friend Lord Turnberg said, the Palestinian people are not its cause. Peace is not its aim. The dignity of human life, Jew or Muslim, means absolutely nothing to Hamas. So that nobody needs to suffer like this again, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said, Hamas must be defeated so that we might once more see a road to a lasting peace. As the Minister said, there should be a Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel. For too long, we have allowed welcome progress in improving relations between Israel and her neighbours to sit without any progress on a future for Palestine and its people. This must change.
We stand with Israel and its right to defend itself. We stand against the terrorists of Hamas, who must release the hostages. We stand for international law and the protection of innocent lives and, together with the Government, we stand absolutely for a political path to peace.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords for their contributions—strong, focused, passionate, thoughtful, insightful, principled and at times emotional. But one thing was clear: these were expert insights from various perspectives. As I said in my introduction, there are some uniform and united messages that leave no doubt about the unity of your Lordships’ House this evening. I reflect the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in saying that, when it comes to important issues, such as how we stand against terror and those who seek to divide us, His Majesty’s Government, the Opposition, representatives of other parties and individual Peers in your Lordships’ House are very much at one.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, yehi zichra baruch—may their memory be a blessing. We join her and many other families who have sadly and tragically been impacted. Every life lost on this issue is a tragedy. As I said in my opening remarks, we stand united with Israel as it seeks to strengthen its response and to ensure that it secures its citizens, for security is the first duty of any responsible Government.
I also note the incredibly valuable and insightful contribution by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I know I speak for the whole House when I say to him that, when we saw the tragedy unfold at the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, we all recognised its particular link to the Anglican communion. Our sincere condolences go to all involved with that institution.
The ramifications of Hamas’s attack on Israel which, as we have heard from many noble Lords, was a terrorist attack, continue to unfold. As I said in my opening remarks, many in Israel, including from within, made comparisons to the Holocaust. While the world has moved on—this is 2023—the brutality of that appalling act of terror, which many noble Lords talked about, resonates.
The noble Lord, Lord Austin, talked of survivor testimony and many noble Lords talked of the importance of standing strong in the face of the challenge and the terrorism of Hamas. I associate myself with the thoughtful comments and great expertise shown by the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg, Lord Reid and Lord Bilimoria, all of whom talked about the Hamas threat, as did the noble Lord, Lord McCrea.
I will be very clear. I have noted and will come on to the issue of a ceasefire. A ceasefire is important for both sides, but when dealing with an organisation that is terrorist in its ideology—scratching the surface, comparisons were made to Daesh this evening; and I have visited parts of the region, including Iraq—it might at times be defeated on the battlefield or in the theatre, but the perverse ideology of such organisations remains. We should never lose sight of this. Hamas’s reason for being is the destruction of Israel. Its actions, terror, division and hate are reflected in what it did to innocent civilians.
Again, there was unity on the important issue of the taking of hostages, irrespective of the noble Lord contributing. The clear, unequivocal message from your Lordships’ debate this evening is: release them now and release them unconditionally.
When I met some of the families directly impacted, it affected me as a father. The youngest child of one family is nine months old; the oldest member of that family is 93. That shows the depravity of the organisation that is Hamas. I commend all noble Lords, irrespective of the strength of the views and emotions they expressed; we are at one on this issue.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and to my noble friend Lord Howard for his illustration of the strength of Israel. He talked about the diversity in its football team. My noble friend Lord Polak reminded noble Lords that I am a Liverpool fan, as is my noble friend Lord Howard.
I will share a personal anecdote. When those attacks happened, the first call I received was from the Israeli ambassador. Very soon that morning, calls started rapidly coming in. Because of a family bereavement, my wife was not there. I was on paternal duties as well. I was standing on the side of a hockey pitch watching my son in his debut performance as a goalkeeper. As I watched my son play, the gravity of the unfolding situation dawned on me. Therefore, when my noble friend Lord Polak talked of that young child in his Liverpool shirt, I wiped a tear from my eye—I mean that sincerely. That could have been my nine year-old, although he would have been wearing a Tottenham shirt; I am not quite sure how that happened.
The importance of life and of the dignity of life should not be lost. When the attacks happened I made three calls, though not deliberately to show how faith matters to me personally. One of the first was to my noble friend Lord Polak, because I knew he was in Jerusalem. The second call was to Imam Sharif Odeh in Haifa; I have been in discussion with him this evening. Tomorrow he is hosting people, including the Mayor of Haifa, who are all of different religions— Muslim, Christian and Jewish together to ensure a unity of response from the community. It is important to recognise that 20% of the population of the State of Israel are non-Jewish—Israeli Arabs made up of Christians and Muslims. As several noble Lords pointed out, Jerusalem is the Holy City, the Holy Land that brings together these three Abrahamic faiths. The poignancy of the contribution from the most reverend Primate is not just acknowledged but recognised for the strength of the Spiritual Benches and their importance to your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked in a strong, principled manner. When I am dealing with him on legislation, I often have to look at the technicalities of the law. I admit this with a high degree of trepidation because I know how the noble Lord—my dear friend David, if I may say that—operates. I was humbled by his gracious invitation to his home. I remember that evening very well. This evening he shared with us his abhorrence of Hamas’s ideology. Other noble Lords referred to it, including my noble friend Lady Warsi.
Let me make it absolutely clear: this organisation seeks not just to misrepresent but to hijack a noble faith. Its actions and ideology are nothing to do with the faith that I, and several other noble Lords who have spoken today, follow. It is no kind of religious ideology. It is the hijacking of a noble faith. But it is equally important that, when we see acts of terror—irrespective of who the perpetrators and victims are—we call these out quite directly. This debate has been reflective of that issue. Other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Gold and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, mentioned the absolute abhorrence of the Hamas ideology.
It is interesting that we have had debates on anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred, and I will come on to the community response. But what is it when you as a Muslim stand up for the Jewish community and you receive hate? How do we describe that? Is that anti-Muslim hatred or is that anti-Semitism? I would say it is a vile combination of both. That is also something many noble Lords in this Chamber and honourable and right honourable Members of the other place have to face. However, it is absolutely essential that we make our views even clearer. We should not be cowed in any sense.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, talked about the Government. I always say, and I will defend this to the hilt, that of course we have issues and challenges in the United Kingdom but this country—our country—is a rich tapestry of communities, people and faiths. Its diversity is its strength. We must not just challenge those who seek to divide but tell them absolutely straight that they are wrong, that we are united, and that their perverse ideology will be defeated. That has to be clear in everything we do.
We mourn the loss of every innocent life in this tragic conflict. The picture changes with each hour. I have been sitting here, as all noble Lords have, for several hours, being constantly updated about the current situation in Israel and Gaza. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has said very clearly that, notwithstanding the challenges and issues we face, we will work distinctly on the four key pillars.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, talked about the warning of conflicts. We should look at that very carefully. It is shocking that, depending on how you define conflict, anything between 40 and 60 conflicts are raging across the world in 2023. The issue of contagion of this conflict is very real. We need to ensure that we understand that our relationship, friendship and alliance, and the strength of unity we have with Israel, also means that we have a valued position. When we talk with various Israeli interlocuters, as my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I have done, it is not just a gesture of diplomacy; they listen. Why? Because we stand with them at this time of great challenge. I am appreciative of His Majesty’s Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches, and in this House the Cross Benches, for their strong united stand in this case.
I turn to some of the specifics on the hostages. All noble Lords talked of the need to release them, and not just the British nationals. I was with the Foreign Secretary, who made it absolutely clear that while of course we defend British interests and look towards British hostages, this is about every innocent person taken, irrespective of whether they are a man, woman or child and irrespective of age or nation. We want all hostages released. That is the message.
My noble friend Lord Howard talked about Qatar, as did the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and several other noble Lords. I assure noble Lords that we are talking to Qatar and that Egypt is also playing an important role. I join others in commending the role of the ICRC and the Red Crescent, which are playing important bridging roles. I assure my noble friend Lord Leigh that this is not a one-off. We are in regular contact with these key players to ensure that those with influence exert that influence and make sure that it is counted. We should not in any way cease our activities, and I will continue to update your Lordships’ House in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about British nationals. I can share that all British nationals who have registered and want to leave Israel on government flights have been allocated seats. We are also working on the very difficult and fluid situation in Gaza. I talked about the 900 people we brought back from Israel to the UK. Commercial flights operate and continue to operate from Tel Aviv, but we are cognisant of our wider responsibilities and that is why we changed the travel advice for Lebanon. We also introduced, in advance of the challenges we are currently seeing on the northern border of Israel and the southern border of Lebanon, a register of presence to ensure that those who are in-country can register. I assure noble Lords we are seized of this.
Many noble Lords have talked about the issue of contagion, including my noble friend Lord Sterling and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. I always saw him as coming from a health perspective, so to see him as an insightful foreign policy expert is very welcome; I am sure there will be many debates in this respect. I welcome both his challenge to the Government and his contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, also mentioned it—I almost called him my noble friend because we have worked on many initiatives together—as did the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and others.
Let me be very clear: we want this conflict to end tomorrow, but that needs Hamas to stop throwing rockets into Israel and to stop holding innocent hostages. We are true to our word, standing up and providing that humanitarian lifeline. Yes, I pay tribute to our friends and partners, the United States and Egypt, in the negotiation, but I know for a fact that this is not some media policy. Your Lordships have it on record from the Minister for the Middle East about the diplomacy and the leadership shown by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who were in the region at the same time—there was almost a baton exchange. When I travelled to Cairo last Saturday, that reflected this strength; the messaging to key partners was candid. I hope noble Lords will recognise that the United Kingdom Government are taking our responsibilities in this respect very seriously.
The issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised about ensuring that we prevent wider conflict is very much at the forefront of our mind. We are engaging directly. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised specific issues. Let us be clear: over the course of the weekend, as the Pentagon reported, there was an attack by Iraqi militia on a US base. There should not in any way be a decrease in vigilance; this is about increased vigilance. We also know that Bashar al-Assad is now in a different place from where he was before, even six or 12 months ago, so we need to be very clear about the issue of contagion, whether that is Lebanon or the situation in Iraq. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we are engaging directly with the Iraqi Government in this respect. Over the last few days I have been in touch directly with the Foreign Minister of Iraq.
We will continue to be vigilant. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has played its role, but there was also an attempt—it was symbolic but nevertheless a real threat—coming from the Houthis. We had seen some real progress being made on the issues in Yemen, but it was Houthi drones pointed towards Israel that were recently shot down, so it is important that we stay vigilant in this respect.
We are also intensifying diplomatic engagement guided at the principle of standing with Israel. As I said, we want Hamas to give back the hostages, stop its incursions and look towards security for the longer term.
Thirdly, we are providing humanitarian aid to the Palestinians now. I pay tribute to the IDF soldier Yosef, who the most reverend Primate mentioned. I also recognise the points made by my noble friend Lady Morris about the incredible bravery of so many workers working for NGOs within both Israel and the Palestinian Territories, who play a vital role. I acknowledge the important role of the United Nations and the UNRWA teams. I spoke directly to the Secretary-General and commend his visit to the Gaza border. It is important that we recognise that senior members of the UN team, including Secretary-General Guterres, Rosemary DiCarlo and Martin Griffiths, were also in attendance at the Cairo meeting.
The most reverend Primate asked specifically about our support for the reconstruction of hospitals and other parts of Gaza. We are committed to that. We have already seen my right honourable friend increase funding over the last few weeks. I remember doubling the funding at the UN high-level week—which was only in September but seems like a long time ago now—and our funding for this year now stands at £57 million. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, that we have made all efforts to mitigate any misdirection of aid to ensure that it reaches the most needy and vulnerable and those for whom it is intended. We therefore work with trusted partners, including UN agencies and other key international NGOs, to ensure that we can fulfil that obligation.
We will continue to assess the situation on the ground and, as I said earlier, we will continue to update noble Lords in that respect. The noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Blackstone, asked about the distribution of aid. We are working with key partners. With regard to protecting some of those partners, I am sometimes reluctant in conflict zones to name them, but UK aid specifically has started arriving; I believe the first plane arrived yesterday. We want to keep the Rafah crossing open. I say quite directly to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that I said right at the outset that it is good that we have started some trucks going in but that is not enough to sustain the innocent civilians who are currently being used in Gaza by Hamas. So funding has been delivered through key partners, and of course we are closely monitoring its delivery.
The noble Baroness Lady Ramsay, my noble friend Lord Leigh, the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, and other noble Lords—in fact, just about everyone—asked about the proscription of the IRGC. The malign influence of Iran is very clear. I cannot give what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked for today, but of course we are observing closely Iran’s continued influence, the escalation and its support for organisations within the region. We are clear that Iran poses an unacceptable threat to Israel, as my noble friend highlighted, including through its long-term support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group. We have long condemned its destabilising influence. I will share the strength of views in many contributions in your Lordships’ House with my right honourable friend and others within government. I am sure noble Lords recognise that at this time I cannot go further.
However, we are working on sanctions. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked me about the JCPOA sanctions. I have written in advance to several noble Lords to say that, as these sanctions are coming off, we are working with our EU partners and the US to make sure that, as they expire, they will come into UK law directly so there is no break from the sanctions currently being applied. We believe that is a legitimate response in order to limit Iran’s malign influence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, my noble friends Lord Wolfson and Lord Polak and the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Verdirame, raised another issue. I commend the influence of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, may perhaps have a conversation with him about the law when it comes to conflicts. Of course we are raising directly with Israel the issue of proportionality and ensuring that it takes all necessary steps to prevent civilian casualties. We are impressing that upon Israel, and we would not be having this number of trucks carrying deliveries if Israel did not recognise the importance of opening the crossing at Rafah. We have stressed to Israel the importance of protecting civilians and facilitating safe and unhindered access to humanitarian and medical aid for Gaza. I assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan, Lady Hussein-Ece, Lady Gohir and Lady Smith, and others who raised these issues that that is a live issue right now, and we will continue to press it. I hope that noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will recognise the UK’s efforts in this respect.
On the issue of how we deal with conflicts, one of the things that I have learned with all the—how can I put this politely?—challenging responses that I get on some of my own social media, which my noble friend Lord Wolfson pointed to, is that this is now a different kind of conflict. We have to deal with things live.
Lots of people ring me and say, “Tariq, what are you doing here?”, sometimes using rather choice language. I say to them that at a time of conflict, you need calmness —a calm, considered response. Evidence matters; facts matter. On the reporting in certain media channels—the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lord Polak, among others, raised this—I can do no better than repeat the Prime Minister’s words:
“When things are so delicate, we all have a responsibility to take additional care in the language we use and to operate on the basis of facts alone”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/23; col. 592.]
Whether that applies to a Minister, a parliamentarian or, indeed, our media colleagues, it is very important that we have that moment of reflection.
We have not been silent on illegal white phosphorus. The noble Lord, Lord Singh, raised this, as did my noble friend Lord Leigh, and I will answer it directly. The accusation made against the IDF regarding the use of white phosphorus is, in its words, categorically false. Israel recognises its responsibilities under international law. Yesterday the Prime Minister called for us to speak on the basis of facts alone. We need to recognise that there is a lot of misinformation out there and we need to verify the facts.
Several noble Lords, such as my noble friend Lady Warsi, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hussein-Ece, Lady Gohir and Lady Bennett, as well as my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, provided an alternative perspective on ceasefires. As I said earlier, ceasefires will also involve Hamas ceasing hostilities. It has demonstrably shown that it is not willing to do so. However, we are opening up those access points for humanitarian corridors, which is where our current focus is. I believe that most noble Lords will agree that it is right to do so.
I am conscious of time and seek your Lordships’ indulgence on two key points. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my noble friends Lord Godson and Lord Polak, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, among others, mentioned the Abraham accords. They are part and parcel of our response. I am always taken with the contributions by the noble Lord, Lord Stone—they are succinct, brief, and to the point. Of course I will continue to work with him in this respect, because we have to bring hope.
We will sustain the long-term prospects of peace and stability in the region—we cannot lose sight of this. Hamas’s abhorrent actions must not be allowed to dictate the fate of the region. If we give up, collectively —and that applies to Palestinians and Israelis—then Hamas has won. Therefore, it is right that we step up even more strongly in support of bringing about peace. As I have said, we remain committed to a negotiated two-state solution—a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, a just and lasting solution that ends occupation and delivers peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. This has gone on for far too long. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, spoke of reconciliation—of course it is possible, and we will continue to focus on that.
I was taken by the very personal contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Oates. Again, it is not that we are not taking on board the calls for a ceasefire, but a ceasefire is called for when it will be most effective. Of course we want humanitarian windows, and those are being delivered. We will continue to call out those issues which are obstacles to peace, such as illegal settlements, which were mentioned—barriers which gravely undermine the prospects of a two-state solution. I assure all noble Lords that we will continue to be seized of that issue.
The final point I want to make is on the rising tide of hate which we have seen. On the work of the CST and Tell MAMA, we have, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, acknowledges, increased funding to the CST, which provides vital support. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my noble friends Lord Harrington, Lady Altmann, Lord Gold and Lady Eaton, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as well as others, all talked of the protests. We celebrate our democracy for its right to protest but that protest must be without incitement to hatred. That is important. I celebrate the fact that I am still able to pick up my file and cross the road to the Foreign Office from this place. We should be protecting these things. They are a vital part of our democracy.
I echo the call made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I remember going to Auschwitz-Birkenau with a group of students when I was a Communities Minister. I still remember that, as we turned into the camp, the silence of that bunch of 16 year-olds was total. At that moment, there was silence in the coach. Why? Because the dawning of their historical learning was very real. It is therefore right that we invest in such initiatives. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Warsi for her initiative, Remembering Srebrenica. These genocides happen and they are happening today. We need to stand united against them and call them out. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also focused on these issues.
We will stand strong against anti-Semitism. I assure the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that I will take back some of his suggestions. There were suggestions from my noble friend Lord Godson about engagement and I assure him that our policy has not changed when it comes to our engagement. I will certainly take back some of the points he wanted to share with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up. I say to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that, yes, we want to strengthen the faith initiatives. We cannot let hate divide communities or spill into our streets. We need to stand firm, whether that is against anti-Semitism or anti-Muslim hatred.
On our universities, I acknowledge the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson. It should not be the case that he is worried about his daughter. I have a daughter as well; I want her to be safe and his daughter to be safe. I want all daughters and sons, all children, all people to be safe in our country. That is what our country is all about.
As a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Minister, I assure your Lordships that we are using our levers of development and diplomacy to best effect. That does not mean we are getting everything right immediately, with the changing circumstances, but we stand to build alliances and unity of purpose. Maybe this is the window of opportunity that brings us a first step to lasting and sustainable peace.
I recognise the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House this evening but today this is perhaps more important than ever. The heavy toll that has been paid by innocents, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, demonstrates the urgent need to make progress towards peace. We should not lose sight of that. We should rekindle the spirit of President Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin: that peace is possible. We should all strive for that and say that we will do our part to ensure that hope transcends over despair, peace over conflict and love over hate.
I end my remarks with words which I am sure some noble Lords will recognise. There was a very revered person who understood the Middle East—as my noble friend said, blessed are the peacemakers, and this person was one of those. He said that the only
“radical means of sanctifying human lives”
is
“Not armored plating, or tanks, or planes, or concrete fortifications. The one radical solution is peace”.
That was the revered, respected and late Yitzhak Rabin, Nobel Peace Prize winner, in his lecture of December 1994. We were reminded by the noble Lord in his earlier contribution about prayers for peace and coming together. I join others in saying that, in our respective ways and homes, and our respective faiths and religions, that kind of faith is needed now and those prayers for peace are needed now. In our own way, let us work towards ensuring that it becomes a sustainable peace for people across the Holy Land.