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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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, 1 month 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.